Loss of fine motor skills a myth!

[Lurper]

I have long argued that those who claim that under stress you will lose control of your fine motor skills were wrong. In my experience it doesn't happen. The following link is to the Force Science Newsletter # 64. Scroll down to from our e-mail bag and read the first question. Pay particular attention to Dr. Lewinski's last full paragraph. Training makes the difference.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/current.html%3Ehttp://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/current.html

[AK103K]

Apparently the link is a myth. :)

[OBIWAN]

Coarse....fine...schmine.....

As you heart rate goes up your ability to do anything deteriorates...especially your decision making...hence the need to keep it simple

And of course training will help alleviate the problems

[OBIWAN]

This may be it

Hardly earth shaking though:confused:

[Lurper]

That is the right one Obi.
However, I would argue that it is earth shaking. The director of one of the foremost L.E. programs in the world that specializes in researching shootings and related topics states basically that:
1. Elevated heart rate has nothing to do with losing motor skills
2. The key is training and if you practice completing tasks (in this case shooting) while under stress you will ". . . reduce the impact of
negative emotions so that you can maintain your fine-motor
dexterity when faced with real-life challenges."

Too many people try to tell others that when they are involved in an encounter, they will lose the ability to think, use their sights, remain calm and many other functions. Heaven forbid that they need to do something that requires fine motor skills like flip off a safety! According to those who forward that thought, one would be lucky to get through an encounter without being a quivering mass of jelly. Based on my experience and those of a half dozen friends of mine, the exact opposite is true. You don't have time to be scared, your senses become hyper acute as does your thought process. You do recall seeing the front sight and just about every thought you have during the event.

[Hard Ball]

If you are ever in a close range gunfight you will find that it is true. Increased heart rate us a minor part of combar stress.

[threegun]

Lurper, Why did I suffer tunnel vision, hearing impairment, and serious slow motion effect? I practice regularly and shoot competitively. My actions were perfect and I recall thinking front sight but I still had the above sensations. It does happen. Training will reduce it and not everyone is effected in the same way.....but it is real.

[Deaf Smith]

Everyone keep in mind that 'fine motor skills' are different skills in different people. Some people can do amazing things under pressure (look at concert pianist!) Others freeze up and can't even chew gum and walk strait when the pressure is on.

What is more, the more training one has, the more skills one can keep under pressure, and yes, fine motor skills.

Try not to put everone in the same box. Some can do much under pressure, some can do little.

[Lurper]

3, that is a different phenomenon. You don't actually lose control, your perception of time changes. There is a name for it, but I don't know how to spell it. That is the same thing that happens when you shoot a string that seems excruxiatingly slow or deliberate, yet when you look at the timer, it is incredibly fast. In fact, I would submit that it is the opposite of losing control. Your senses and perception increase to a level where time actually compresses and your vision hones in on the object of your concentration. Sort of a hyperawareness.

Hardball, I have been involved in a few incidents and in none of them did I lose any motor skills. Not only that, but I can tell you of several of my friends who have the same experience. While for you, this will indeed be true, if for no other reason than that you believe it is so.

It all boils down to training. Mental training is the key. As mentioned in previous posts, you should train your mind for those situations. Visualize different situations in vivid detail, smells, feelings, sounds, sights, everything. Visualize how you react, see yourself moving smoothly, calmly and confidently. Visualize what you say, and everything you do. Your mind does not know the difference between what you visualize and what happens. You need to remove your concious mind from the equation.

I have know several people including some old time gunfighters who say the same thing. Even Cooper said it. He is also the one who told me that it is normal to feel elated when you best your opponent in an armed confrontation. Yet, the "accepted" social norm is that you will feel guilt, remorse, sadness, depression, PTSD and all sorts of other afflictions. That is hogwash. We are conditioned through our mechanisms of socialization to feel that way. Once you realize that, you are no longer bound by that convention. The main reason people don't know how to feel is because they have never been there and never even thought about it. I am always amazed at how many people carry a firearm (either as a profession or a hobby) and have never even thought about killing someone. It is imperative that anyone who may find themselves in harm's way think about it in advance. You cannot afford to hesitate when the time to shoot comes. It can cost you your life.

In the same way, if you believe you are going to fall apart and lose fine motor skills under stress, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Believe in yourself, believe in your mind.

[685cmj]

My response to "Training is the key" is that the problem is precisely that you can't train for a lethal confrontation! Not just in the details of how the thing will go down but particularly in the incredible responses your body will make. You simply can't duplicate that by going out on the range and pretending in some way or another....You can't "train" your body for a life and death situation in how it responds, dumps hormones, etc.

[threegun]

Lurper,3, that is a different phenomenon. You don't actually lose control, your perception of time changes. There is a name for it, but I don't know how to spell it. That is the same thing that happens when you shoot a string that seems excruxiatingly slow or deliberate, yet when you look at the timer, it is incredibly fast. In fact, I would submit that it is the opposite of losing control.

Good. I was worried that I got a bad body and mind LOL. Well now if these things are different then I have to agree that training trumps fear induced fine motor skill loss. My partner said my draw was still lightning fast. My grip weld was perfect and aside from the slow motion I was pulling the trigger (although only half way) just fine. I do train often though and as you suggested I go through scenarios. I simulate shooting to cover and many other probable response for almost every were I go. I thought I was being paranoid.

[Hook686]

;) *****

[Gbro]

Lurper; I think the term is "Time Dilation"

Training is the key to any activity or sport you hope to excel or survive. The local police chief wouldn't give out carry permits prior to the 2003 law here in MN, because there was (and is) no restriction on the firearm you carry. If a LEO Carry's a 1911, he will have a cert. of qualification in his training file, if he then changes to a Revolver or any other handgun different from the 1911, he will have to qualify with it before carrying it on duty.
We on the other hand carry what we like and what the situation calls for, and like me i shoot a different handgun in the practical pistol get together.

When i enlisted in 1971, there was a big change in the way the Army was going to train. During basic we were shipped almost everywhere we went, and the live fire exercise was discontinued. (crawl under wire with fire over the top) the Urban legend at that time was; some senators kid jumped up and was killed, our contention was (nothing lost).
I understand that that exercise is back in use, as it gives one the reality of being shot at. Lots of excess Adrenalin flowing under that wire. the flow is not always as great when in a similar situation after an initial experience.

[threegun]

685,You simply can't duplicate that by going out on the range and pretending in some way or another....You can't "train" your body for a life and death situation in how it responds, dumps hormones, etc.

What you can do is condition your body to react a certain way to a certain threat. Example when a bolt of lightning hits close by and causes a loud boom instantly my reaction used to be to cower slightly in startled surprise. Once I started training and drawing my gun with dozens of daily presentations while at work (with no customers around of course) I noticed that my response to that startling thunderous boom was to go for my gun. When the day came that a man came into our shop and pulled a gun from beneath his trench coat I assure you that I believe we were being robbed. So much so that I experienced tunnel vision, slow motion, and hearing difficulty. My reaction was as I trained. In retrospect my partner (who had what turned out to be a bb gun pointed at him) froze. He never practiced more than the trips to the range. He is a fine shot but his reaction to danger was different as was his training.

[Steve in PA]

I agree with the OP and have long said the same thing. Some people have long claimed that you loose "fine motor skills" during a SHTF situation, which is why you should never use the slide lock/slide release, but rack the slide, etc.

Horse hockey!!

If I can't hit a big old lever due to loosing "fine motor skills"........then how in the world am I expected to hit an itty-bitty mag release???? :confused:

[Lurper]

3, no you're not paranoid!:) Or, should I say that thinking about different scenarios doesn't make you paranoid.
When I was first introduced to practical shooting, one of the things I used to do as a course designer was to set the alarm on my watch. When it went off, I would stop what I was doing and observe the environment. Then, I would come up w/a scenario and convert it into a stage. Complete with a written scenario for the stage briefing. That was back in the days when every stage had a scenarion. It made matches much more fun in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is that you can train for those situations. You train your mind. Back in the 80's when I first started shooting competitively, the president of USPSA (Dave Stanford) told me about self hypnosis and visualization. I started using these techniques and in 3 months went from being an average "C" class shooter to winning the '86 MD state IPSC match against some of the best shooters anywhere (including a World Champion and a Bianchi Cup winner). At that time, the US Olypic teams were starting to work with visualization as well. Studies were done that showed athletes who visualized competing in their events experienced the same neuro-physiological response as when they actually ran the event. Your mind controls what happens to your body. By learning to control your mind, you do learn to control your body and some of the reactions that others preach to be involuntary.

What happened to you 3 was what athletes call being in the "zone".

[Rob Pincus]

SO, if you can train yourself to not be afraid.... you're fine. :confused:


Seriously, the "lose of fine motor skill" that comes during a dynamic critical incident is not just a factor of fear & stress, there is a physiological component that has to do with the redirecting of bloodflow throughout the body, not just an arbitrary high heart rate. Less blood to extremities, less strength & control in the muscles there...

I believe that we should not try to "out train" the human body's natural reactions to fear & stress... at best, it slows us down... and it probably isn't possible at the most fundamental levels.... Work with your body's natural reactions: limit the amount of fine-motor-skills necessary in your defensive training.

[Lurper]

It's not a matter of training not to be afraid. It is training to focus concentration on a task or set of tasks regardless of the environment. Learning to remove the conscious mind from the equation is the key. The responses are controlled by the mind, therefore they can be regulated in the same way that people learn to regulate their pulse.
This type have training has been proven in arenas from sports to space and everywhere in between - including shooting.

[Rob Pincus]

Fighting is not a sport.. that is kinda the point...

Shooting can be a Sport... but defensive shooting during a dynamic critical incident?? No.

For my students, I use the analogy of an Indy racer Vs. car owner in a big city.... The urbanite MUST develop the skill to parallel park if he wants to own and operate a car in the city.. The indy driver doesn't need to have EVER done that, but must have other skills developed to a high degree (shifting, cornering at high speeds, etc)... They both use the same tool (a car), but they are doing very different things.

I hope that makes sense... too many people confuse mechanical target shooting skills with defensive skills.

What you "can" do in a controlled environment like a range might have very little to do with what you NEED to do during a dynamic critical incident.

[Lurper]

To use your analogy Rob, the difference between the average driver and an Indy driver is training. The average driver cannot comprehend what 180+ mph is like. They don't understand that the professional driver's mind is conditioned to the point where time and speed don't matter. Everything that happens to the Indy driver at those speeds happens at a pace that is readily comprehensible. That's because their concentration is focused on the task at hand. Can the average driver be trained to drive at that speed? Absolutely!

While I really respect your opinion Rob and you have a state of the art facility, I must disagree. The mechanics of shooting are the same regardless of target or environment. It is really as simple as align the sights, press the trigger. Granted, it is not easy to keep your cool while someone is trying to kill you. But, I have met many SpecOps, S.W.A.T. and LEO's who say the same thing. When the events transpired, they knew exactly what they were doing. They didn't suffer a loss of skills, nor were they rendered incapable of thought or reason. In fact, they became more focused. They all attribute it to training and mindset.

It is the same thing as when people who are supposedly "dead" still fight on. Medal of Honor winner Fred Zabitosky (hope I spelled it correctly) tells one of the best stories about that. One of his SOG colleagues was hit by a burst of AK fire that among other things tore off his jaw. As the extraction chopper was lifting off, a NVA soldier lined up an RPG on it. The wounded man jumped up and killed the NVA soldier. When they got back to the rear, a surgeon told Zabitosky that what happened was not possible - his colleague had died instantly from his wounds. Yet, we hear numerous accounts of people who are supposedly dead fighting on. That illustrates the power of the mind and the importance of mindset.

[Dreadnought]

3, that is a different phenomenon. You don't actually lose control, your perception of time changes. There is a name for it, but I don't know how to spell it.
The correct "scientific" term is tachypsychia, or literally "fast mind". Your brain goes on information overload and starts taking in information at a much higher "bitrate", if you will, than it does under normal circumstances. That seems to slow time down. I have been in several of the "fight or flight" situations, and though I've never been shot at, afterward I could remember everything that happened in excruciating detail. I haven't had the opportunity to test my "fine motor skills" either.

[Lurper]

Thanks Dread, that is exactly the word!!!!

[Rob Pincus]

Lurper,
You missed the point entirely: It's not the degree of skill... its the skill itself. The Indy driver is NOT more skilled than the urbanite when it comes to Parellel Parking, just because he can corner at 180... two different things. Re-read the analogy... in fact, I invite to read Combat Focus Shooting (http://www.valhallatrainingstore.com/books.html) to learn more about the difference between training for sport and training for a fight.

Stories and anecdotes are one thing... empiracle evidence and observation of what highly trained people do when things get bad is another...

If you have further questions, please email...

I'm out.

-RJP

[Lurper]

Rob, I would love to read your book. But my point is that there is as much empirical evidence and research that indicates that indicates loss of motor control is a myth. True empirical evidence is hard to gather since no one is hooked up to machines when these events happen. However, just the opposite has been proven many times over. The body responds to visualization in the same way that it responds to the actual event.

Specifically to your point; that means that one can be trained to not suffer loss of fine motor skills while under stress. Training until firearms technique becomes subconcious is what matters, whether for sport or defense. My secondary point is that this can be devoloped off of the range and does not even need to involve a firearm. So every person who carries a firearm could and should be trained in this manner.

Ultimately, it boils down to belief and experience. I do not believe that one must lose fine motor skills while under stress. I have seen the research that supports this, I have experienced it myself and have talked to several people who have as well. I have talked to doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, LEO, military, hypnotherapists and many other people. The consensus was that while there are some physiological changes that occur, they are not incapacitating. Yet, proponents of the other view want to tell people that when the event happens, they will lose control to the point of not being able to hit a safety, mag release button, etc. That just isn't true.

Does it happen? Certainly. It happens often, but the higher the degree of training, the less likely it is to happen to a given individual. The core question is: Why does it happen to some individuals and not others? My contention is that it is the level of skill, competence and confidence in the individual.

[Eghad]

Stress/fear does strange things to folks....

I remember when the unit deployed overseas some of the folks you thought you could count on you couldn't. Some of the folks that I didn't think would cut it surprised me.

I remember watching the documentary of BlackHawk Down. One of the Delta operators was talking about the gunfire making some of the Rangers who had never been in combat before freeze up and stop moving. The more experienced Delta guys had to keep them moving. It was interesting to hear the thoughts of the Rangers when one of the experienced Delta guys was killed.

[mikejonestkd]

Thanks dreadnaught for the term.

I have trained for 20+ years and even when I set up the most stressful simulation to purposely overwhelm either my students or myself it still doesn't have the same stress or evoke the same mind/body overload that real encounters do.

That being said, drill and repetition, focusing on the basics becomes natural and you will react for the most part as you have been trained.

Keep your skills sharp and train more and in more challenging ways.

Your mind, body and spirit must be conditioned and trained to respond to ensure a successful outcome.

[BlueTrain]

Well, I for one don't believe an urban dweller needs to know how to parallel park--there aren't any spaces!

Seriously, though, I would be interested in knowing the circumstances of armed encounters of those who have had any. Detail like light conditions, distance between opponents and so on. The devil can be in the details sometimes. For instance, if a lot of shootings take place in low light conditions, then all the talk about focusing on the front sight doesn't mean quite as much as it might.

I agree that training and practice is important, although I generally give my opinion that only so much is worthwhile because it is probably not possible to keep ourselves in peak condition, given most people's personal circumstances. There isn't enough time in the day for that, even if you are a policeman. If you were a professional gunfighter, then perhaps some justification might be found for additional training. In any case, as I stated in another thread, rather less training is required just to keep you more than competent with a handgun and it is possible that certain kinds of shooting might be detrimental to one's handgun combat skills, assuming no one is allowed to shoot anything else.

If training is key, then the training itself is important. I realize there are limitations to what can be done on an live-ammo range. Ideally, the range conditions and the training would duplicate the most common circumstances of shootings. Naturally, it is not possible to have a target that will shoot back and probably not one that will move, other than fall down, which is better than nothing. It is interesting to note that serious training has been conducted using BB guns and fencing masks. These days I suppose paintball is what might be used.

My experience with indoor shooting competition, though limited, does suggest the limited value of such things as far as combat training goes, but it will certainly point out the limitations of your equipment and no doubt there is a level of stress present. However, I gather that opinion is divided over the value of competive shooting (not referring to formal bullseye shooting).

I will agree that training (good and sufficient) will overcome most of what you might lose in your abilities in a crisis situation but it should also go without saying that nothing will be easier and somethings will become next to impossible. If you find that your favorite S&W auto has a difficult to manipulate safety lever when you are at the range on Saturday morning, well, it will still be difficult Saturday night.

[STLRN]

Here is what we train our Marines about what to expect when they go into a gunfight:
When Shooting Starts:
*Chemical Cocktail:
-Adrenaline
-Cortisol
-Dopamine
*Blood diverts from extremities to large muscles.
-Loss of Dexterity and fine Motor Skills

*Tachypsychia:
-Eyes Dilate
-Tunnel Vision
-Auditory Exclusion
--Blood Vessels in Ears dilate
*Nausea
*Time/Space Distortion
-Things Slow Down

*Heart Rate:
-60/80 BPM is Normal
-300 BPM has been recorded
-200 BPM has been recorded sustained
-115-145 BPM is Optimum Combat Performance
-At 145 BPM Complex Motor Skills Go Down
-At 175 BPM Gross Motor Skills Go Down

*Heart Rate of 175 BPM
-Fore Brain Shuts Down and Mid Brain Takes Over
-Mid Brain does only four things: Fight/Flight/Eat/Sex
-Mid Brain sends signal works (NSR)
-All senses but vision shuts down
--(Touch, Taste, Smell, Hearing, ESP??) for perseverance shooting…shoot until it

*Out of 10 Shooters expect:
-9 to have auditory exclusion
-2 to hear intensified sounds
-8 to move on auto pilot
-6 to have higher vision of clarity
-1 to experience paralysis
-2 to have memory distortion
-2 to experience the world moving in fast motion
-4 to experience intrusive/distractive thoughts (family, loved ones)
**Same Shooter May Experience More Than One Effect!!!**

Effects on the Shooter
*Shoot Faster & Less Accurate
*Will Think & Perform Tasks with less Accuracy
*Experience Some or Complete Memory Loss
*Experience Loss of Feeling:
-Pain may or may not be felt
*Denial
*Altered Decision Making Process
*Do things never done or been trained to do

[Lurper]

STLRN that is where the camps differ. Look at the language of your post:
we train our Marines about what to expect when they go into a gunfight

If you train them to expect that, that is exactly what will happen. If you train them that they will maintain focus and perform as trained, they will. You set them up to perform the way they are trained.

There are differing opinions on what happens with one side claiming that no matter what, you will suffer loss of motor skills, coordination, etc. That you have no control over any of it and are at the mercy of your body's reaction.

The problem with that mindset is that it fails to acknowledge that all of those functions are controlled by the mind. There is enough research and evidence to support the fact that you can control those things with your mind. People have cured cancer with their minds. It is not uncommon for people to control their pulse and many many other physiological events.

Which is the purpose of this post: If you train your mind properly, you will not turn into a quaking mass of flesh, unable to perform anything that requires fine motor skills as many people contend. Is it easy to train to that level? No. Can everyone be trained? Yes. Twenty years ago when someone talked about Visualization, self-hypnosis, shooting subconsciously, people looked at you funny. Now, it is a commonly accepted fact that those techniques have a huge impact on performance in any arena. Research has shown that the mind does not now the difference between running a race or visualizing the race being run. Twenty years from now, even more will be known about the mind and how it can be used to increase performance etc. I hope I am around to see it and on the forefront of discovery and application.

[STLRN]

I am not sure you can train a person out of physiologically response, hence the discussion of the chemical cocktail.

The first time I was in combat, I was a young LCpl and never knew what to expect yet, I experienced several of the effects mentioned even without being told it was going to happen.

I think its is very beneficial to tell people what will happen (I am also a big fan of the Bullet Proof Mind prior to combat deployments), so they have a foundation of what to expect.

I have seen some very well trained people in combat before, even they show the effects of the fog of war. That is one reason I am also a believer in burst limiting devices on weapons. Guys who easily do 2-3 round burst in training tend to fire much longer bursts when in contact.

[matthew temkin]

Losing the ability to do some fine motor skills is well documented.
Correction officers are taught to pre thread their flex cuffs because trying to do this is very hard in an actual confrontation.
The same thing is also being done by special forces personnel who carry these devices as well. As a court officer I would pre set my handcuffs at just the right tension and make sure that my extra magazines and/or speed loaders were properly positioned for quick action.
Quite frankly I never thought that increased heart rate had much to do with this but was more due to the increase in adrenaline and other body chemicals.
Quite often after a violent confrontation I found my hands shaking, which was most likely a result of these chemicals.
I am not sure if anything except repeated exposure to actual combat can really tame this beast.
Training helps, but even very realistic training has it's limitations.

[Jeepmark2005]

The simple answer is that everyone is different. There are some things that MOST people experiance in response to stress. There are things that MOST people do or experiance under stress. Training can help precondition the mind to react a certain way under stress but every individual will react differently. And what one person may do one day, may not be what he does the next day.

Training with Sims guns is good because they go BANG when fired at you. That is something important to get used to. It makes a HUGE difference when you have the threat of being struck by something and hear the loud BANG of the Sims gun being fired at you. If you want realistic training. Go up against and someone armed with a Sims gun. Good stuff. You will learn to use cover VERY quickly. For CQB I don't think you will get any closer than that to a real gun fight. Get good at that and you will atleast have an advantage.

[Powderman]

Lurper, I must disagree with a portion of your post. And agree with other parts!

Training goes so far, and gives you a good foundation. The folks who do not react in the text book manner are usually those who have been around the block a few times. They know the facts of their readiness like clockwork:

They know their physical limitations, and have worked to overcome them.
They know the possibilities about what may happen to them, and have a plan to counteract.
They know what they must do--and they do it!

Practice at the actual event allows you to fine tune and hone your tools; it allows you to not only react but to react with precision.

The military and law enforcement have recognized this; it is for this very reason that we engage in force-on-force training.

Going through Defensive Tactics is good. Going through in a RedMan suit against a determined opponent who is trying to kick your :eek: is even better. Why? You learn to take the hit and fight through it.

Going through OC requals are good. You learn how to take the pain and fight through it.

Practicing building searches is good. Clearing buildings in body armor, face mask and cup when the actors are firing Simunitions is MUCH better.
Why? Because you learn how to stay in the fight.

I must comment, though, on your coherent and well articulated post. It does give food for thought.

[BlueTrain]

The "fog of war" has nothing to do with this subject.

[STLRN]

Actually the "Fog of War" is a generic term for the assorted effect that one sees in combat, this applies to fear, friction, lack of knowledge of the enemy and self, lack of ability to get information across because of fear, friction, etc.

[Hard Ball]

Consider these facts about gun fights which actually occur in the United States. The FBI study "In the Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement (1997) found that the majority of officer involved shootings happen at 10 feet or less and in the dark or under poor lighting conditions and are over in an average time of 7 seconds.

"Officer debrieffings show that many officers suddenly finding them selves under fire react by pointing their weapon at the target and firing at the attacker as fast as they can.
Why don't the officers use the specialized stances and use their sights as most of them have been taught? Because of the phisical changes that take place almost instantly when you are suddenly under lethal attack. Your body is flooded with adrenaline. You lose fine muscle coordination and complex motor skills. You may suffer from tunnel vision as you concentrate completely on the target. Under the intense stress of a kill or be killed situation loss of near vision is common making it difficult to see your sights clearly and focus on things within four feet. Your front sight may be blurred if you can see it at all and the loss of loss of fine muscle control and complex motor skills means your sight alignment may be impossible.
What will you do under these conditions lookking into your opponent's muzzle flash? You will instinctively point your weapon at the target and fire at the attacker as fast as you can. "

These are the facts. No amount ot argument can change them.

[Lurper]

HB,
Those are not the facts. There is as much research and evidence that shows that those reactions can be controlled. The devil as they say is in the details. The problems is that most officers are not trained to that level. The average police officer, soldier, or civilian has not had the level of training necessary to achieve it. Hence, it is more common for people to feel that way. This however does not mean it is a fact. Nor does it mean it is not possible. The fact is that the mind controls the messages sent that cause the changes many say must happen under stress. Training the mind can change the messages. It is just plain closed mindedness of members of the shooting community that lead to opinions such as "everyone will lose fine motor skills," etc. That just isn't true. Everyone will suffer different effects to different degrees, and everytime an incident happens there is a chance that they will perform differently. However, saying that when you are in an armed encounter, you will point the gun at the target and fire as fast as you can without using the sights, etc. is no more true than saying everyone will puke when they see someone else puke.

There are as many anecdotal examples of people who will tell you that they did think clearly and could perform complex tasks under pressure. One of my favorites is my friend Roger. I've posted it before, but I'll recap again. Faced with two BG's reaching under their jackets (for pistols as it turned out), Roger drew shot the first guy 5 times with a S&W 64, reloaded and had his sights on the second guy before the BG could get his Mod. 29 out of a shoulder holster. I don't know about you, but I think performing a revolver reload that fast requires fine motor skills. Roger is definately an exception to the rule. He practices everyday in his back yard and he has won the Bianchi Cup. But that is precisely my point: Once you train to a certain level, you can overcome what some people say is the natural reaction while under stress.

[STLRN]

Well training helps with the friction, but it doesn't fully get rid of it.

Your friend Roger need to tell the Bianchi Cup to put his name on the winners' list

The Bianchi Cup was created in 1979 by John Bianchi,
Bianchi International, and awarded to the winner of the
Bianchi Cup International Pistol Tournament. NRA
designated the Bianchi Cup as the National Action Pistol
Championship in 1984 and assumed operational control of
the tournament the next year. Bianchi International
presented the Bianchi Cup to the NRA in 1985. The Cup is
awarded annually to the National Action Pistol Champion.

1979 Ron Lerch 1816-062X
1980 Mickey Fowler 1889-085X
1981 Mickey Fowler 1890-088X
1982 Mickey Fowler 1903-145X
1983 Brian Enos 1903-612X
1984 Brian Enos 1910-257X
1985 Rob Leatham 2034-155X
1986 W. Riley Gilmore 1916-144X
1987 John Pride 1912-151X
1988 John Pride 1918-163X
1989 Lemoine Wright 1914-152X
1990 Doug Koenig 1920-157X
1991 W. Riley Gilmore 1920-166X
1992 Doug Koenig 1920-169X
1993 Bruce Piatt 1920-170X
1993 Tournament Winner: 1920-173X
Brian Kilpatrick, Australia
1994 John Pride 1920-174X
1995 John Pride 1920-179X
1996 Mickey Fowler 1918-184X
1996 Tournament Winner:
Ross Newell, Australia 1920-163X
1997 Bruce Piatt 1920-181X
1998 Doug Koenig 1920-180X
1999 Bruce Piatt 1920-185X
2000 Doug Koenig 1920-185X
2001 Doug Koenig 1920-184X
2002 Doug Koenig 1920-184X

[Lurper]

STLRN, you are correct. Roger fininshed 3rd the year I thought he had won - 1987. Not the same, but not a bad performance. My apologies for my bad memory.

[Hard Ball]

" There is as much research and evidence that shows that those reactions can be controlled."

Please post these studies then.

[David Armstrong]

But my point is that there is as much empirical evidence and research that indicates that indicates loss of motor control is a myth.
No. There is some empirical evidence and research that indicates loss of motor control is not the same in all persons. That is very different. All the evidence that I have ever seen indicates there is a point at which one loses fine skills. The point at which that occurs differs among people, and can be changed through training, but it can still occur. The point might be much higher for a SWAT officer than a 1st-year rookie officer, for example, but given the right circumstances the SWAT-doggie can still suffer it. That is the key to the whole discussion, IMO.

[Lurper]

DA, I don't wholly disagree with you. For example, you can take a S.W.A.T. guy and put him through a dozen firefights and he may be as cool as a cucumber. Ask him to speak in front of a crowd of thousands, or say, deliver a baby and he may fall apart. But, he can be trained to speak in front of large crowds or deliver a baby without panicking.

There is plenty of information out there on the effect of mental training on performance while under stress. Read about the Apollo Astronauts, Lanny Basham, the miracle man, read about the olympic athletes and visualiztion training, there are millions of examples in every field.

My point isn't that it doesn't happen. My point is that anyone can be trained to manage it.

[Lurper]

Powder, your post made me wonder about a couple of things.

Practice at the actual event allows you to fine tune and hone your tools; it allows you to not only react but to react with precision.

That is exactly what I am saying. I have read too many times that under stress, everyone will lose fine motor skills (the ability to react w/precision) and be unable to do something as simple as disengage a safety, reload etc.

What I really wonder about (and I already know the answer) is how much emphasis is placed on mental training as opposed to physical training (F.O.F., kill houses, etc.)?
I know that the average person or L.E.O. doesn't train enough to reach that level of proficiency which is precisely why the people who don't react that way are the exception. I guess I'm just saying that it is possible for anyone to reach that level with the proper training.

[WhyteP38]

I'm coming in late to this discussion, so my apologies if I'm saying something that's already been said, but I've always held a difference between fine motor skills and trained motor skills. During my years as a naval aviator, we trained for various stressful situations. What started out as fine motor skills became trained motor skills. I was never tested in the manner I'm about to lay out, but my guess is that under stress, I could perform my trained (formerly fine) motor skills but would probably lose any ability to perform untrained fine motor skills.

My experiences convinced me that one can perform fine motor skills under stress, but only those fine motor skills that were trained and engrained. That's why as much as possible we trained the way we expected to fight. Because ultimately, loss of fine motor skills is not entirely a myth. Nor is the loss of fine motor skills entirely inevitable.

[685cmj]

The Front Site program today was very illuminating, and, I must say, shows Lurper to simply be wrong. You might be able to train for motor skills, but you can never train for the psychological and physiological responses, no matter how much Lurper argues that he and his friends are supermen who are above any of that.
For those of you who saw the program today, you saw on three or four occasions a very skilled and trained LEO (introduced as a SWAT team member who had been involved in multiple actual firefights on the job) who, just in the adrenaline of competition, mishandled his weapon (and his own feet) under pressure on not one but several occasions, and ended up losing the competition by being "shot" as he couldn't get his gun to fire face to face with his opponent. His skills were obviously superior (in timed shooting he hit the inner ring--the only one to do so, and in the building he clearly knew how to search and clear a building far better than his opponent) but despite his vastly superior experience, knowledge, and ability, when it came to the critical moments to pull the trigger, he fumbled several times, forgetting the safety was on, etc. All this, and the only thing on the line was first place in a competition. His fellow officer, the police chief, went out early on for the same reason--ran right past a target because he kept having misfeeds and problems with taking off his safety. The fact is, none of us in that situation can afford to be wrong...so it pays not to expect to have a superman response, and do everything as simply and needing as little fine motor skills as possible.

[WhyteP38]

you saw on three or four occasions a very skilled and trained LEO (introduced as someone who had been involved in multiple actual firefights on the job) who, just in the adrenaline of competition, mishandled his weapon (and his own feet) under pressure on not one but several occasions, and ended up losing the competition by being "shot" as he couldn't get his gun to fire face to face with his opponent.That correlates with my experiences, which is why I said trained and "engrained."

The closer a trained fine motor skill gets to being a habit, the less likely you are to lose it under pressure. Which raises the question of whether a fine motor skill that has become a habit really is a fine motor skill anymore. For me, I'd say no. What was once a fine motor skill is now something different: a trained motor skill. But that's just my way of looking at the question.

But regardless of what you call it, the concept is valid.

[Lurper]

A television show and one person doesn't prove anything. Also, "(introduced as someone who had been involved in multiple actual firefights on the job)" tells you nothing about the man's training or competence. It only tells you that he has been involved in actual "firefights" whatever definition they chose for that word. I can say I have been in 7 armed confrontations, but I really only count 3 because they involved firearms (the other person). Does that make me an expert? No. However, having competed in literally thousands of matches I would argue makes me somewhat of an expert "just in the adrenaline of competition." I can tell you that there is nothing that is going to happen in a match that will make me lose fine motor skills or unable to take off my safety. Are there things that will make me miss the target? Certainly - if I allow them too, but that is in my head.

Using your example to say that this is what will happen to everyone is absurd. No one can say that it is going to happen to everyone anymore than anyone can say it will happen to no one. It's not just me who says that. Read the people mentioned above, read the original link to Dr. Lewinsky. It's not about being super-human. It is about training at skills until they do not require conscious thought. It's also about conditioning the mind to focus concentration on those tasks regardless of the environment.

[PzGren]

Lucky is the one not affected by adrenalin. However, you can learn to live with it - and maybe profit from it.

I was into Karate competitions as a teenager and never felt the adrenalin. When I was older I was boxing and everytime the bell rang for the first round, I felt an adrenalin rush, everything was kind of slowed down in my perception and my arms seemed strangely light.
Once I started moving, the adrenalin level subsided and I never really felt a really negative effect.
I did not need fine motor skills but I believe they were suffering in exchange for focus on the other guy in the ring. Everything else did not exist in that moment.

[Odd Job]

My opinion is:
Unless your training is in circumstances where the threat to your safety is as real as it would be on the street in a gunfight, you are not training to overcome the effects of stress under fire.
The simple reason is that you are not subjecting yourself to the same amount of stress. I don't see how you can engineer it. Even if you were able to duplicate the cardiovascular response with drugs beforehand, you cannot duplicate the psychological effects, because the threat level isn't there.
I am of the opinion that only repeated exposure to unrehearsed dangerous events (such as what LEOs endure) can 'immunise' a person against an over-reaction or a magnified response to such threats. And even in those cases, much depends on the variables involved. The guy might be very experienced and cope well in a life-threatening situation on the street, but how well will he do if his family is involved?

[STLRN]

In the cited article the Dr who states it is a myth Dr. Lewinski has a Ph.D. in Police Psychology. Personally I have been too much believer of the psychobabble that is Psychology. Maybe they need to have some MD actually chime in, or at least some people specializing in physiology, since the responses we are talking about are physiological and not psychological.

[Lurper]

That's the real underlying argument STLRN:
Do we have control over these effects or not?
The old school answer is no, we don't. We are at the whim of what our body chooses to subject us to with no chance of any other outcome.

The new line of thinking is yes. Since these functions are all controlled by the mind, these effects can be limited. In the last couple of decades more and more information is coming to light that supports this.

I mean, think about it. There are people who have been diagnosed w/cancer who were cancer free months later without ever having gone through treatment. There are people who have been told they would never walk again who refused to believe it and did walk (read about the Miracle Man). I was told that I may never walk again, would always have a limp, would know when it was going to rain on, and on. I had an auto accident in 10/1985 and fractured my acetabulum (hip [hope I spelled it correctly]) and broke my femur - still have an 18" pin in it. I never have walked with a limp, which means that I can still walk, I don't know when it is going to rain, in fact I have done many physically demanding things after that including technical climbing.

There are people who control their pulse with their minds, there are free divers who do things that humans are not supposed to be capable of doing. Look at the 4 minute mile, that was supposedly out of man's reach. We don't have a clue to what the mind's full capabilities are and probably won't for several more decades. But I cannot and will not believe that the same mind that is capable of amazing feats like those above is not capapble of allowing us to do a task as simple as reloading or flipping off the safety while under stress. That dog don't hunt!

[mordis]

Lurper there is one thing you and lot of other people in the tatics and training forum seem to be forgetting or failing to give consideration, is alot of us dont have accsess to elaborate training faculties. Sure i could go to Robs course for how ever long it is in colorado, but When im done all me and lot of us have to come home to shoot at are static ranges. The only range i have accsess to during the winter months is the indoor range at H&H firearms here in ft.wayne. I cant do any practice there with regards to realisitic force on force, simunition, drawing and firing a shot or two accuratly or anything in the realm of mental training.

Most of us have no real way of training to deal with the stress of gun fight. Im not a cop so i dont have accsess to the police training, nor am i in the military. Alot of poeple come to this board looking for tips on training but, what is needed is a way for normal people to train in effective ways while staying with in the rules of our local shooting ranges.

Now me, i have accsess to large out door farm owned by my father in law, where i can go and do what ever type of shooting i want. But due to the crappy nature of indiana weather i am limited to the summer months only.

I personaly think both sides of the argument have there merits. Sure a guy with alot of training, runs into a senario in real life that closely mimiks something in training he has run a thousand times, hell likely have no problem. Its every thing else that he has to worry about.

I just wish lurper, and Rob if he is willing to post again in this thread, would state ways the average joe could practice combat fighting and the associated mental aspects while at our local ranges were there are strict rules, and at our local farms were we have ample room to stretch but no training aids and other equipment to speek of.

[Lurper]

Mordis, you are correct. I didn't say everyone could do it. I said everyone could be trained. I also know that I am blessed with good range facilities and as far as abilties go am not the average shooter or LEO.

What I have a problem with is someone telling me (and everyone else) that I will fall apart under pressure and there is nothing I can do about it. That is absolutely untrue. I can tell you things you can do to train yourself, but most people don't want to believe it. When I first started talking about visualization and self-hypnosis 25 years ago, people would get a glassy-eyed look and turn away. People used to joke that I ". . . made a deal with the Devil, that's how he got so fast." I got so fast and good because I kept an open mind when Dave Stanford told me about self-hypnosis and visualiztion. Three months later, I won the MD state IPSC Championship.

Most people can't keep an open mind because they are stuck on convention. Just like the ruckus that starts when I tell people here that the Weaver stance is not the best stance or when I tell them that you don't need to grip a pistol tightly. You would think I was saying Christ was a Muslim. Also, too many people want to think that their LEO range officer or their SWAT buddy or military buddies know what they are talking about. When it comes to pistolcraft, civilians have been years ahead in terms of technique and equipment.

Having had my little rant, here is what you can do:
Next time you go shooting, make a perfect shot. Remember how it looked, felt, sounded, smelled, everything about it. Remember how good you felt when you made it. When you get home, find yourself a quiet place to sit and relax. Take 10 slow deep breaths, in through your nose, out through your mouth. Try to reach the point where the little voice inside your head is silent. When you have reached that point, start to remember (by visualizing it) the perfect shot you fired. Relive the experience in vivid detail. Sight, sounds, smells, feelings, everything. See the front sight on the target in crisp detail (I can actuall see the serrations on mine), feel the trigger move every nanometer until the shot breaks, feel the satisfying surpise when the shot breaks. Feel the satisfaction of knowing that your round hit exactly where you aimed, because you know that that is where the sight was when the shot broke (because you kept your eyes open and on the sight). If you do that on a regular basis (preferrably daily), your shooting will improve.

You can adapt that same technique to whatever situation you want. There is one caveat however. If you don't know how to draw properly or you don't have a good technique then you are just reinforcing bad habits.


Don't let anyone fool you, shooting is 99% mental - no matter if it is combat, competition or hunting (once you have the basics down). The ability to focus your concentration is what enables you to complete complex tasks under pressure (let alone something as simple as flipping off a safety or reloading).

One other excercise you can do which will help is:
Take a blank sheet of white paper. Put a small red dot in the center of the paper. Find a quiet place and relax. Put the paper on a table or floor in front of you. Focus on the dot, clear your mind of thoughts and focus on nothing except the dot. It will be hard at first, that little voice will start going. When that happens, start over. Your first goal should be to be able to focus on the dot without hearing the little voice for 15 seconds, then 30, then 60, then 120 and after that, however long you like.

Those are only a couple of small pieces to a complex puzzle, but they are a starting point for everyone. Try them.

[JohnKSa]

There is as much research and evidence that shows that those reactions can be controlled.I believe that nearly any reaction can be controlled with enough conditioning.

HOWEVER, the fact that a few people have taken the time and effort necessary to prove that it can be done is a FAR cry from proving that the reaction is a myth.

Your initial statement is not supported by the information presented. You have supported the idea that it's possible to train to the point that one can suppress the normal reactions in high-stress situations (at least of one particular type). You have presented nothing at all to suggest that the normal reactions are a myth.

[Lurper]

Jk
The myth that I was pointing out was that we have no control over those reactions, not the reactions themselves.

I also acknowledge that it takes a lot of training to reach that point. But the one thing that really sticks in my craw (and I've metioned it a dozen times already) is people saying that I won't be able to take off the safety, reload or anything else that requires "fine motor skills".

[matthew temkin]

Double tap;
C below

[matthew temkin]

May I suggest a simple solution?
Instead of trying to overcome these reactions that happen under stress how about training in a system that uses these reactions? Or stake our lives on simple equipment?
For example, why not choose a revolver or a Glock type weapon rather than spend countless hours trying to make flipping off a safety "foolproof."
I may be wrong, but I feel that that Lurper's real agenda here is to "prove" why target focused shooting is not necessary and can be replaced with aimed fire always if practiced 'enough".
Am I correct on this?

[Lurper]

Mr Temkin, I don't believe I have an agenda. If I did, that would not be it. I think on this issue, my point is that the mind is the ultimate controller of or actions/reactions and that people should spend as much time training their mind as they do training their body (even more IMO). By training the mind, you can control the reactions that some people claim are going to happen to everyone. That's all.

I believe that I have shown that aimed fire can be as fast as target focused shooting when someone is trained well. Yes, that is one of my favorite topics, but not the purpose behind this thread.

[matthew temkin]

Only actual combat can truly prepare one for combat.
And until one has such experience I think he should assume that he will not be able to control these reactions and should use something simple that works with them.
I disagree with your claim that sighted fire--up close that is--is faster than point shooting.
Point shooting can be accurate well before the gun comes up to the line of sight and can also be zippered up from a fast draw.
It also can be learned in a fraction of the time that fast aimed fire can be.
Something to be considered for someone who does not have unlimited time to train/practice.

[Rob Pincus]

Mordis,

I hate to sound like I'm trying to push books, videos or training at VTC.. but that is where we put this information out every day. The key phrase is "Working with what the body does naturally"... The whole premise of Combat Focus Shooting, for example, is to find the most efficient way to end a lethal conflict with a gun. That isn't done by spending months at a training facitlity or dry firing 3 hours a day.. it's done by making the thought process and techniques as intuitive and efficient as possible.


As has been pointed out several times int his thread, we KNOW that certain things are incedible likely to happen to a human in a dynamic critical incident... Your question brought me back in to the thread because your question is the one we try to answer every day: how do we prepare the average armed professional or self-defense oriented gun owner to work with all that stuff and still be effective in a realistic situation. Competitive shooters at the world class level are PROFESSIONAL SHOOTERS engaging in an athletic endeavor, not warriors preparing for combat and not CCW permit holders with regular jobs, tight budgets and limited training time.

-RJP

[685cmj]

Only actual combat can truly prepare one for combat.
And until one has such experience I think he should assume that he will not be able to control these reactions and should use something simple that works with them.

Lurper,
It probably sounded like my last post was somewhat sarcastic (the superman reference), but I really didn't mean it to be. Rob and Mr. Temkin put what I was trying to say better--it is clear to most of us that we have neither the time, money, nor facilities to go above the human response to some higher metaphysical plane, even if it is possible (which is certainly in dispute, especially when there is no way to actually practice the deadly fear condition!). So when our lives and family's lives are in deadly danger, none of us can afford to put our hope or trust in the fact that we won't have these kinds of normal reactions. If we lose that bet, we or a loved one may well die. Therefore, for the approximately 95% of us, we have to rely on the simplest possible methods and responses and equipment, always assuming the worst may happen. To do anything else is insanity. Now the other 5% percent will be 1% composed of people who really are supermen in that respect, and 4% of people who think they are but are wrong. Sometimes I think extraordinarily gifted people lose sight of reality just a bit. I just don't think any teacher ought to come on a public forum and encourage more students to join the 4% club! (By the way, I appreciated your double tap video)

[matthew temkin]

I have seen Lurper's double tap video as well as his body-head one.
Yes...he is fast and accurate.
But...I have taught hundreds of shooters to do the exact same thing--with equal speed and accuracy-- with one handed point shooting and to do so within an hour or so.
And not just standing still, but also in motion and from the hip/sternum level as well.
Just because something is simple and fast to learn (because if follows the body's natural reactions) does not make it inferior to the more complicated stuff being pushed.

[Lurper]

MrT
Only actual combat can prove whether you have trained effectively for actual combat.
You are assuming that I cannot use the techniques you discuss. I can assure you that I can "zipper' with the best of 'em. Also, I can and have taught people to get sub 1 second draws in 1 session. I don't like to do it, because there is much more to it than just fast draws. I can shoot on the move, standing, sitting, laying down, holding the gun left hand, right hand, upside down and sideways. There is nothing complicated about it. We are not opponents, we just have different perspectives.

I know that you and Rob don't mean to insult me, but frankly I find your comments as an attempt to pigeonhole me as a competitor thus in some way invalidating my opinion in the SD arena as just that. In fact, I am a warrior, I have a bushido I have lived by since my LRRP days. I have BTDT on more than one occasion. The fact that I am a professional shooter does not mean I do not have a warrior mindset, that my shooting technique or philosophy does not cross over into SD, nor does it mean that I think it is the only way (it's fair to say I think it is the best way).

I'd be happy to debate/discuss the differences in philosophy/technique in a separate thread (after discussion w/ Brownie, I know that there is a whole lot more common ground than one would think).

As far as simplicity goes, not too many things are more simple than flipping off the safety or hitting the mag release button. That is exactly the type of "fine motor skill" that many say you will lose control of. Bollocks!

We are obviously all passionate in our beliefs and evangelists in our own way. However, the world is a big place and there is room for all of us. I would rather revel in our commonality than fight over our differences. However, debate, discussion and an exchange of ideas is how progress is made.

I just find it rather simplistic and self-serving to say that the mechanics of shooting are any different no matter what the target or environment. It really is as simple as putting the sights on the target and pressing the trigger. To make it more than that is just muddying the waters IMHO. The arena does not matter, it can be competition, the range, the street, a war zone or your living room. What is necessary is reaching the level where you can do that regardless of the environment. That is my whole point. If a person wants to reach that level, the must train their mind.

[Hard Ball]

" There is as much research and evidence that shows that those reactions can be controlled."

Iwoukd still lipe to see some of this research.

[Lurper]

HB, I listed places you can start a couple of posts ago. The are tons of examples of how the mind can be trained. Read about visualizationa and the Apollo program, Lanny Basham, the "Miracle Man", olympic athletes and visualization, on and on. Google it . There are numerous sources - shooting related and not.

[matthew temkin]

Lurper..we will have to agree to disagree on the time it takes to train someone to be a good self defense shot.
I can do so in a matter of hours. ( which is why I could never earn a living in this racket)
And I see no reason to try to "train out" the body's natural reactions that occur under stress.
I teach point shooting and WW2 combatives, and these systems feed off these reactions--but will still work even if the user is cool as ice. ( a/k/a the exception to the rule.)
Does this apply to what you teach?
Or is your system based on training out these reactions?
No..I am not being a wise ass but to insist that someone must spend years training in a system that is designed to train out nature is doing a great disservice to those who need deadly force skills tomorrow as opposed to the next decade.
Besides..what proof do you have that someone--even with extensive physical/mental conditioning--will not revert back to nature in his first confrontation?
PS..I have seen even good shooters forget to flip off a safety during the "stress" of hunting and combat training.

[Lurper]

Mr.T,
Okay, this will breathe a little new life into the thread. lol
No one is saying you can "train out" the body's natural reaction. What I (and others) am saying is that those are no more natural reactions than remaining calm under stress. One of the key issues is that if the mind is a blank slate (in an adult, it never truly is), the person will not know how to act. However, we are socialized to believe through our media and culture that it is "normal" to lose fine motor skills, etc. when the SHTF. That is simply not true. A person is just as likely as not to remain calm. In the same sense, we are socialized to believe that we should fall down when shot. That also is not true. No more so than "knock down" power. These are all constructs created by persons with agendas.

The crux of our differences is that we operate in different paradigms. You believe that these reactions are natural and therefore uncontrollable. Your belief is based on "facts" from MD's, writers, trainers, experience, etc.
I believe that the mind controls everything we do and that if we learn to control our subconscious we control what we do. My belief is based on "facts" from MD's, PhD's, writers, trainers, experience, etc.
There is as much evidence to support both sides. Part of the problem is that there is no way to measure these events while the confrontation is taking place. You can simulate it, but there is again as much evidence from simulations that supports either argument, the same with anecdotal evidence.

I would ask you the same question: what proof do you have that someone -- even with extensive physical/mental conditioning -- will fall apart in his first confrontation.
I have seen people fumble the safety, etc., but I have also seen people as cool as a cucumber. What I want to know is what makes one person cool while the other crumbles and how did the cool one get that way!

If I can convince even one person to sit down and visualize a confrontation and to contemplate their actions, then I will have achieved my purpose. The mind is the key.

[matthew temkin]

You seem to confuse the issue.
I do not see losing fine motor skills as a liability, since there are systems and weapons that take this into account.
And losing the ability to preform fine motor skills is not the same as falling apart under pressure.
In other words, one can still kill a man with trembling hands if properly taught.
Ditto for tunnel vision, audio exclusion and other things that tend to happen quite often in most people when forced to fight for their lives.
Some people will panic no matter what.
But in most cases freezing up is a matter of having either no training OR unrealistic training which does not take these things into account.
Or training that convinces them that they will be as cool as ice when the you know what hits the fan.
Even a superman may die trying to fire his cocked and locked 1911, when a Glock 36 would have kept him alive.

[Lurper]

I don't recall saying that you saw it as a liability. What I did say was that you saw it as a certainty. Tunnel vision and audio exclusion are seperate phenomena which are caused by focusing the concentration. What sparked this thread was an officer's fear that - because he was told that he would "lose fine motor skills" when in a confrontation - he would be unable to hit the mag release button with his thumb.
I agree, some people will succumb to panic no matter what. That is what can happen when thrust into a situation for which they have no conceivable idea of what to do.
I would also argue that your last two sentences support my argument. What I am specifically advocating is that people train their minds to be able to focus concentration despite the environment and train their body/mind to the point where shooting becomes subconscious. That's all.

[JohnKSa]

No one is saying you can "train out" the body's natural reaction. The myth that I was pointing out was that we have no control over those reactions, not the reactions themselves.

I also acknowledge that it takes a lot of training to reach that point.??However, we are socialized to believe through our media and culture that it is "normal" to lose fine motor skills, etc. when the SHTF. That is simply not true.The research on the effects of extreme stress were done to EXPLAIN why the things that DO happen, happen. It's a stretch to say that the dissemination of the research results CAUSED these things to happen. Especially when one considers that these studies (particularly in the beginning) were focused on past trauma. It's difficult, if not impossible, to explain how the results of studies that hadn't been completed could have "socialized" the study participants to have experienced these effects in the past.

I think that if you're going to try to support the idea that the dissemination of the study results have caused the effects then the first step would be to prove that the prevalence of the effects has increased as the study results have been more widely publicized. Simply pointing out a few counterexamples is not sufficient.

I don't believe I've ever seen a study that states it that these effects are universal (in spite of the fact that they are often misquoted that way on the internet or in other media). Therefore the existance of a counterexample (or even many counterexamples) is not proof that the studies are flawed nor that the results of the studies are in question.

Furthermore, the article's most negative comment about the loss of fine motor skills relates to ONLY high heart rate. It says that high heart rate does not significantly impair fine motor skills. However, there is more to extreme stress than simply an elevated heart rate and the article says so explicitly: "The idea that a high heart rate causes a loss of fine motor skills is a myth. The culprit is fear or anger, not heart rate per se." As far as I can see, that says that in the absence of training, the loss of fine motor skills due to extreme stress (fear/anger) is a FACT.

That is not at all consistent with this statement:What I (and others) am saying is that those are no more natural reactions than remaining calm under stress. The article clearly implies that they ARE natural reactions but that training can help. Which is in direct contradiction to the first statement I quoted in this post.

It seems to me that you have not presented evidence to support your premise, and further that since your premise is unsupportable that you have shifted your premise as the thread has progressed...

[Lurper]

Oh, but I beg to differ my friend. Here is the last paragraph of the letter:
We much more noticeably lose psychomotor skills under fear
or anger, primarily because of our inability to focus
attention properly when distressed. The key is training.
With a proper training program that allows you to repeatedly
practice your skills while under a high degree of stress,
you will build your confidence and reduce the impact of
negative emotions so that you can maintain your fine-motor
dexterity when faced with real-life challenges. In other
words, good training can help you build a history of
successful performance under high stress.

I've taken the liberty of bolding and italicizing the parts that I thought were most applicable.

[JohnKSa]

I read that.

It's saying that those effects are natural reactions due to fear or anger and with enough training the effects can be reduced or eliminated.

I said that in my previous post and you responded that:The myth that I was pointing out was that we have no control over those reactions, not the reactions themselves.

I also acknowledge that it takes a lot of training to reach that point.Then later you said:No one is saying you can "train out" the body's natural reaction. What I (and others) am saying is that those are no more natural reactions than remaining calm under stress.First of all, there is a direct contradiction in those two statements. The first says that training can control the reactions, the second says that's not what you're saying.

But what I was getting at is the last part which says that they aren't natural reactions.

The article says nothing to imply that those reactions are not natural--in fact it seems to support the idea that fear/anger/stress normally causes loss of fine motor skills.

[Lurper]

JK
I disagree, the article and Lewinski himself does not say they are natural (nor that they are not). I said that I (and others) don't believe they are natural.
If they are not natural, then they cannot be "trained out".

My comments about socialization have nothing to do with studies. The mechanics of socialization are typically the media (all forms) and culture (family, social, educational, etc.).

The other excellent example of of this phenomenon is:
We are told that when you take someone else's life, you will feel remorse, guilt, shame and many other negative emotions. We are told that to feel that way is "normal". Further, we in the U.S. are socialized to believe that to feel elation over killing someone who was trying to kill you is wrong (socially unacceptable at best). Yet, you will find as many people who will tell you that they don't feel bad or don't feel one way or another about it. If you tell a "mental health professional" that, most will tell you that you are just suppressing it. That's because it is in their best interest.
Another example is grief counsellors at school.
Jesus, you would think prior to the 80's or 90's a student never died. Hell,we had 5 in one year at my H.S.. There weren't any grief counsellors then and as far as I know, we didn't grow up as a generation of feeling suppressing, dysfunctional sociopaths.

It is the same thing that the one doctor mentioned in the thread on soldiers & killing. He basically said that many people fall down when they are shot because that is what they believe they are supposed to do. The same applies to many other situations.

[matthew temkin]

And many people who are shot don't know it until well after the incident.
So what exactly is your point?
That the only reason why some people lose the use of fine motor skills is because they think they are supposed to?
And that if they are told that the power of positive thinking will allow them to do algebra and their nails while being assaulted that this will make it so?
Again..what exactly is your point?

[Lurper]

MrT
Please refer to the bolded text from Dr. Lewinsky's letter. That is my point. Taking it a step further: train the mind to focus concentration on a task regardless of the environment.

[JohnKSa]

I disagree, the article and Lewinski himself does not say they are natural (nor that they are not). I said that I (and others) don't believe they are natural.

From the article:

"The idea that a high heart rate causes a loss of fine motor skills is a myth. The culprit is fear or anger, not heart rate per se."

In other words, there is a loss of fine motor skill, but it is due to fear/anger, not heart rate.

"We much more noticeably lose psychomotor skills under fear or anger, primarily because of our inability to focus attention properly when distressed. "

Again, the article states that the response to fear or anger is a noticeable loss of psychomotor skills.

The rest of that section of the article addresses training with a view to: ..."build your confidence and reduce the impact of negative emotions so that you can maintain your fine-motor dexterity when faced with real-life challenges."

Clearly the article is saying that proper training can reduce the normal loss of psychomotor skills due to stress. I don't see how one can draw any other conclusion.My comments about socialization have nothing to do with studies. The mechanics of socialization are typically the media (all forms) and culture (family, social, educational, etc.)So you're saying that someone made up the idea that fine motor skills deteriorate under stress and the media promulgated it? Starting when? I suppose it's possible, though extremely unlikely--this is certainly the first time I've heard such a premise hypothesized.

If that were true, then we should see an abrupt increase in this sort of problem in stressful situations at the point where the media started this "inadvertent brainwashing". Have you any evidence of such an increase?

I don't mean to be harsh, but you've provided nothing that supports your premise nor any evidence that contradicts or even calls into question the accepted view. It's an interesting speculation, but it's nothing more than that. I have to say that the title of this thread is a considerable overstatement given the lack of evidence presented.

[Lurper]

JK,
We will just have to disagree on the verbage. Nowhere do I see the words or the implication that loss of motor skills was natural. He says it happens, but so did I. That doesn't mean it is natural. It's "natural" to jump the first time you hear a gun shot, but after a couple of times you don't. So, is it natural and/or can it be controlled. Lewinsky clearly and unambiguosly states that it can be controlled.


Here is my thesis statement perhaps a bit more clearly.
The mechanics of socialization are well proven. We are told what to believe and what not to believe from a very early age. Not until we are adults - and indeed for some people never - do we learn that we are able to do things that we were told we can't. We are told by our friends, family, people we come in contact with, television, radio, the internet, magazines, books, and others what to expect or how to handle a given situation. For example we are told that we should feel sad when someone dies, but in other cultures that isn't so. We are also told (primarily through TV and movies) that when you get shot, you will get knocked down or fall down. Your mind is inundated with these images, etc. on a daily basis. The effect of socialization is to create a "norm" that is created by society through these mechanics.

Tests during the Apollo Program and with olympic athletes have shown that when they visualized running a race or performing other tasks, the brain sent out the same impulses as when they really ran. This demonstrates that the mind works the same whether you are visualizing the task or actually doing it. This is demonstrated vividly in the shooting sports by the effect of dry firing on perfomance. Visualiztion aids in many things. Morris Goodman, also known as "The Miracle Man" was in a plane crash. The following is an excerpt of his story taken from his website:
"While attempting to land his airplane one afternoon Morris crashed. With his neck broken at C1 and C2, his spinal cord crushed, and every major muscle in his body destroyed Morris was no longer able to perform any bodily function except to blink his eyes. His injuries were too severe for him to survive."

He was hooked up to a respirator and was told that he would never be able to do anything other than blink his eyes. Morris believed that as long as he had his mind, he had all he needed. He kept telling himself to breath, soon he was removed from the respirator. The doctors had no explanation for his "miraculous" recovery. Later, not only was he breathing unassisted, he walked out of the hospital! There are many similar documented events like people controlling their pulse, breathing and blood flow.
So, it is well documented that the mind can control far more than what most people think it can.

Through visualization and other training techniques, you can train your mind to not react the way that some people will. You do this two ways: 1. By learning to focus concentration no matter what the environment 2. By visualizing your calm, precise and succesful completion of stressful events (in this example, an armed confrontation).

Proven concept, proven application, proven that some people do not feel the fear, shaking hands, loss of control or panic that others do. I don't understand why some of you refuse to accept it.

[Jeff22]

I think we're over-thinking this way too much . . .

It is a fact that certain physiological changes occur when people are put under stress. How much effect these changes have on performance will differ from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

I think Lurper's point is, if you train and practice a lot and become accustomed to functioning in a higher-stress enviroment (shooting combat matches, FoF training, battle drills, whatever) those changes will effect you LESS than if you were not prepared.

[matthew temkin]

Now that makes sense.
Thank you for speaking in plain English.

[STLRN]

I think allot of it gets back to the person and the cirmcumstance.

I know from an ambush position it is much easier to shoot at people because, you have the initiative. However, after being ambushed it is much harder because you were taken by surprise.

Also there are natural born killers out there, most men can be made to kill but it is not their natural state. It is like the quote from Hericlitus in 500 B.C.
"Of every 100 men that go to battle...
70 should not even be there,
20 are nothing but targets,
9 are true soldiers, and we are lucky to have them for they the battle make...
but ONE, one is a warrior, and HE will bring the others home."

[Lurper]

Thank you Jeff22, obviously I couldn't have said it better myself!:D

[Rob Pincus]

Lurper,

Sorry, no offense meant.. I had no idea what "kind" of shooter you are, nor does it matter... I was speaking about competitive shooters in general as opposed to people who really NEED to shoot at a particularly moment because someone is unexpectedly trying to kill them.

[David Armstrong]

My point isn't that it doesn't happen.
Then the entire premise of "Loss of Fine Motor Skills a Myth" is incorrect. If it happens, it cannot be a myth.
My point is that anyone can be trained to manage it.
And my point is that is incorrect. Yes, training will allow people to control the stage of onset, but the problem can still arise. Many, perhaps most, cannot get the amount of training to move the point of onset very far back, and even with the training we still see instances where sudden events or surprise twists can create the loss of motor skill in the best trained.
As far as simplicity goes, not too many things are more simple than flipping off the safety or hitting the mag release button. That is exactly the type of "fine motor skill" that many say you will lose control of. Bollocks!
And yet we see exactly that on a somewhat regular basis--well trained persons failing to flip off the safety or properly do a mag change when under stress.

[Lurper]

Rob
No problem, I didn't think it was intentional.
DA
Read my earlier post, the myth is that it cannot be controlled.
In further comments, it is clear that Dr. Lewinski believes that after a certain level, one reaches an "innoculation point" where the effects are controlled.
It is primarily when we SUCCESSFULLY perform at a
higher-than-familiar stress level that inoculating effect
begins to occur. Unfortunately some trainers focus on the
high stress level and forget the successful performance.

LE personnel in pre-service and in-service training do not
need to be pampered, but confidence and competence--the 2
elements required for great performance under stress--are
not gained by stress drills that primarily result in
failure.

As I said earlier, there is as much evidence to support the argument as there is to refute it. It is not an absolute that the effects will or will not happen. It is not an absolute that you will perform the same each time it happens. Which is one of the underlying points. It is not an absolute, yet proponents of it say it is. That is an indication of the same type of close mindedness that led people (smart people) to believe the world was flat in spite of mounting evidence that it wasn't.

[David Armstrong]

Read my earlier post, the myth is that it cannot be controlled.

Sorry, but that is not correct either. Part of my contention comes from the fact that I have seen lots of Lewinsky's work, and heard him discuss this stuf in detail a few times. Stating that it is a myth that it cannot be controlled is equally wrong. Certain reactions can be controlled by some persons in some situations. Take that same person, with the same training, and change the situation slightly and they will have the same uncontrolled reactions. Further, the amount of training needed to reach the innoculation level for most people is more than resources allow, and seems to fail without regular reenforcement.
As I said earlier, there is as much evidence to support the argument as there is to refute it.
Then one cannot declare it to be a myth!
It is not an absolute that the effects will or will not happen.
No. It will happen. That is an absolute. The question is at what point will it happen. That is the question that proponents of the issue address. I'm not aware of anyone in the field who has said that everyone will always suffer it at the same point, or that you cannot change the point of onset. But AFAIK all the researchers agree that fine motor skills can be lost by anyone given the right circumstances.

[Jeff22]

I'll state right up front that, although I've been a cop for 25 years (26 in May) I have never been in a shooting incident nor ever come particularly close to being in one . . .

Over the years I've had the oppertunity to talk to about a dozen officers locally who WERE involved in shooting incident. Two of the guys I knew fairly well, and the others were acquaintences. I didn't extensively debrief them, either. It was just a conversation when they felt like talking about it and when they initiated it. (Because I'm a firearms instructor, the conversations often took place over a beer after firearms training, or at a training class someplace, or at 3am over coffee when we were both working)

The one anecdotal thing that was consistent in EVERYBODY'S account was, if the events occur such that you have a warning in advance, a moment to realize there's about to be a gunfight, and that you're going to be in it, events are easier to manage, and the perceptual distortions like tache-psychia (while present) are much less pronounced.

A lot is perception of impending danger, and then having some training and skills to fall back on when the action starts. If you can realize there's about to be a problem, you can "change mental gears" and proceed on, provided that training and experience has equipped your "mental gearbox" with more than one gear . . .

[STLRN]

The use of the term "inoculation point" makes me think that this is in line with Grossman's work on the subject. However, Grossman in the Bullet Proof Mind, says the inoculation is not through repetitive drills, visualization (although he does believe it is necessary) or standard training practices. But through exposure to controlled violence. The most effective being simmunition training. In the second part of the presentation he actually mentioned that skilled shooters all experience unacceptably high heart rates and loss of fine motor control the first time they do simunition training, and with each exposure to the training the heart rate was reduced and after about the 5-6 times of being exposed the heart rate didn't raise outside the optimal point. At that point the shooter had become inoculated to the effects of the hormonal dump.

[Skyguy]

Lurper is wrong.

David Armstrong is right.
Matthew Temkin is right.

There is a predictable linear increase of sympathetic nervous system stress up to the total loss of control.

Some stress can be mitigated by training and/or job repetition, especially if one is in control of the situation.
When one is 'not' in control of the situation one's stress level can rise to dangerous levels and bring on the sympathetic nervous system overload and all of its debilitating symptoms.

Force on force training teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter and most shooters revert to instinctive response.
This training does help one to understand a proper way to fight, but FOF also loses its stress-training effect as the players soon realize that there is no real threat or fear of dying.

One should train in the basic skills that are useable in very high stress encounters and train in the physiological and mental responses to the fear of dying.

Trainees should learn about auditory exclusion, threat focus and tunnel vision in fight or flight mode.
Such training should also include quick movement off the x, threat focus, face the threat, the combat crouch, binocular sighting, arm/s extended, one handed shooting, blading, cover, etc.....because that's how most people will fight.

In a CQ standing gunfight odds are one will instinctively scream, move as they face the threat, assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, extend arm/s, tightly grip the handgun and squeeze off multiples.

Instinctive training draws on the predictable reactions to a life-threat and is much easier to master than any learned technique such as Weaver, modern technique, et al.
Little to no muscle memory needs to be ingrained, no special grip, no sights method needs to be practiced. The focus, crouch, movement, arm/s extension, grip are automatic.

I think that it's best to stress-train in the manner one 'will' default to in a sudden CQ gunfight....not in complicated, counter-intuitive, old school methods meant for the range or competitions.
.

[Jeff22]

In December and then again in February I participated in a bunch of Force on Force exercises as part of in-service training.

In December we mostly did drills related to responding to active shooters and in February the drills were related to search & clear of a building.

In each case, I participated once as a student and four other times as an "aggressor".

My observations correspond with other observations I have made about FoF training in the last five years. Being an aggressor allows me to see things "from the other end of the gun".

I do not EVER see officers squaring off to the target and crouching!!

Shooters who use the Weaver Stance on the range used the Weaver Stance in the FoF exercises. (to be technical, we teach more of a "Chapman Stance" where the shooter is NOT sharply bladed in relation to the target)

Shooters who use the Isoceles Stance on the range used the Isoceles Stance in the FoF exercises.

Nobody crouched to any detectable degree.

I realize this is contrary to the studies that Bruce Siddle has made in past years, and contrary to the observations of many other trainers, but, for what it's worth, that's what I've seen . . .

[Lurper]

DA
It is not an absolute, to be an absolute it would happen to everyone every time. It does not. Also, as far as I can tell from readins several of Dr. Lewinsky's articles and other writings, he most certainly does believe it can be controlled.

STLRN
I don't know to what degree Dr. Lewinsky or some of the others mentioned visualiztion. I advocate it as the best way to train your mind to focus concentration in spite of the environment. That ability is one that Dr. Lewinsky believes is key in controlling these reactions.

Sky
You (and anyone else for that matter) are certainly free to believe what you want to believe. However, the results are not predictable. If they were, then they would be easy to counter. Again if any people involved in an armed confrontation do not suffer those effects then they are not a certainty. It is only in recent years that people have strived to study what makes those people different. As more studies are done (another big one will be started this summer), it looks like the difference is competence and confidence from training that allows the person to focus their concentration on completing tasks while under stress.

Quite frankly, and not to be insulting, but I cannot see how anyone can say these reactions are a certainty or absolute. Even in the worst case studies like the one for that LACSO, only 90% of the officers suffered from one form or other. ONE or more and they included auditory exclusion and tunnel vision which skew the results because they are different phenomena caused by focus of concentration. That means that 10% of the sample suffered NONE of the effects! NONE. It is clearly neither a certainty or an absolute. Of the 348 officers involved in the shooting studied, 35 experienced none of the effects that some claim everyone will experience.

The breakdown is as follows:
Fast motion time: 17%
Slow motion time: 62%
Diminished sound: 84%
Intensified sound: 17%
Tunnel vision: 79%
Heightened visual clarity:71%
Automatic pilot: 74%
Dissociation: 39%
Intrusive thoughts: 26%
Temporary paralysis 7%

From Police Marksman May/June 2002. You can read the entire article on stress reactions here: http://www.forcescience.org/articles/stressreactions.pdf
It is interesting to note that the effects most commonly associated with focused concentration (e.g. Tunnel vision, heightened clarity, diminished sound, slow motion time and automatic pilot) are the effects experienced by the largest percentage of those involved in the study.

If you read the article, you will see that these reactions are not universal in occurance. You will also see the connection betweeen thoughts and performance and you will again see that Dr. Lewinsky among others believes that these reactions can be controlled.

Not to pick on technique (that can be done in a different thread), but no one is born with an instinct to shoot. You may be born with an instinct to point, eat, drink, have sex, etc., but not shoot. I don't believe that the Weaver/Chapman/isoceles/combat crouch techniques are good. I use what I was taught as a natural technique. Really, when I refer to stance it has more to do with the upper body than the lower. Once you shoot naturally, the position you are in makes no difference. As I mentioned earlier: right hand, left hand, sitting, standing, kneeling, prone,upside down and sideways, I can hit the target. That is because I was taught to shoot naturally, the way the body performs at its best. Yes, this technique was developed from competition and taught by people like Enos, Leatham, Shaw, Plaxco, Jarrett, myself and others. It has very real application in defensive shooting. Those who choose to dismiss competitive shooting as not applicable in the "real world" are just ignoring reality. Everyone listed above has been paid to teach the most elite military and LE organizations in the world to include: SFOD D, NAVSPECWAR, 22 SAS, countles Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. If these techniques have no "real world" application, then why are these agencies willing to pay good money to be taught them?

[Rob Pincus]

Sky,

Can I be a little right? ;)

Lurper,

They pay me a significant amount of "good money" too....

[Skyguy]

....and Rob is right. :)
I do not EVER see officers squaring off to the target and crouching!!
Nobody crouched to any detectable degree.

I bet nobody screamed either. Easy to be macho when there's no fear.

FoF training does not scare people because they know it's safe and they won't die. They won't even get hurt.
FoF is merely tactical training. It's pretend......kinda like when kids play cops and robbers.

Take those same trainees into real shooting situations and if they're shot at by surprise or ambush they'll scream. If they get away they'll crouch-run and seek cover.
Any real lead coming their way and they'll crouch.....guaranteed.

My suggestion is to find FoF trainers that know what's happening, who'll minimize the common pistol stances and include instinctive response training in their instructions along with tactics. Because that's how they'll fight.

There's a lot of truth in post 88, please reread it.

[STLRN]

I keep trying to download the article to read it, but it keeps coming up as corrupted.

It seems like Dr Lewinski is keeps coming up as the one proving "the myth" is incorrect, are there any others in his camp? He may be a voice in the wilderness, or than again he may be totally wrong.

[Lurper]

STLRN
There are others, Artwohl, Honig, Roland, Landers and others. All of these have studied the topic. I'm not sure how many reached the same conclusion as Dr. Lewinski did, but from what I have read it would appear that most of them do in one way or another.

Rob
I know, and you most certainly deserve it. :)

[Rob Pincus]

My point being that getting paid by the gov't to do anything doesn't prove one right... these people buy $7500 toilet seats.....

Writing articles doesn't make one right either....

Making vidoes, having been in lethal encounters, getting onto a "special" team, posting on TFL (on any other forum, blog, email list....), etc, etc..... In the next VTC Newsletter, I could claim that Auditory Exclusion doesn't exist because I've seen military personnel use verbal commands under critical incident stress... some people would believe it.. some people might even start a thread on some forum citing me as a reliable source... BUT, it wouldn't make it true or right.....

Anyone who wants to schlep out to CO can spend hours watching video of empiricle evidence of a whole bunch of trained, untrained, confident, nervous, cool-t-shirt-wearing, never-held-a-gun-before, held-every-gun-before, BTDT, and/or DKTAFAG people reacting in extraordinarily similar ways to both high level simulations (my video) and/or real situations (archive)... SEALs to Surgeons to Sixteen year old girls: It Happens. (note the period).

Can we out-train some automatic reactions? Probably not. Can we train to counteract or overcome them very quickly? Maybe some of the people, some of the time, maybe most of the people in certain circumstances........ but, as Mordis pointed out, who has the time? Personally, I don't feel that it is worth the effort to bother. I can also shoot tighter groups if I put my pistol in a Ransom Rest and line it up on the bad guy, but I don't consider that a viable defensive shooting technique.

-RJP

(if you are wondering about that last acronym, it ends with "From A Gun")

[Skyguy]

Can we out-train some automatic reactions?
Absolutely not! There comes a point in sympathetic nervous system stress level where even the 'most highly trained' will fall victim to the dibilitating effects of the fear of dying.

Be prepared. When lead comes our way, we'll all tremble, fumble, hyper-focus and lose the peripheral. Our heartrate and hormone dump will reach max levels. We'll move/hide, crouch and push our weapons and arm/s out in fear and defense.
If these things don't happen.....you're already dead.

Can we train to counteract or overcome them very quickly?
Somewhat. Drop the crap training and train to use gross motor skills and instinctive reactions. Because that's how one really fights.

Some stress can be mitigated by training, FoF and/or job repetition, especially if one is in control of the situation. (e.g. traffic stop, swat)

When one is 'not' in control of the situation one's stress level can quickly rocket to dangerous levels and bring on sympathetic nervous system overload and all of its debilitating symptoms. (e.g. ambush, wounded)

To believe that counter-intuitive training, gun games, target shooting, et al will 'eliminate' stress effect symptoms or overload is to believe a myth spread by the unknowing. Those activities do mitigate, but only to the point of one's own fear or lack of situation control.

Train in the way one actually reacts to the fear of dying........or don't.

Edited to add that I'm speaking in generalities about training issues and not to Rob or Valhalla which has a respected reputation.
.

[Lurper]

Rob,
Research, studies and publishing the results is a far cry from being called a reliable source because you blogged something. These are people (mostly PhD's) who have made it their purpose in life to study these effects in an effort to save the lives of those who put their lives on the line daily. The question again isn't whether these things happen, it is why and how to control them. We have again crossed the threshold from fact to belief. You (et. al) appear to believe that theses events happen and that we have no control over them. Those on the other side (myself included) believe that they can be controlled. There is evidence to support both arguments, but not enough yet to conclusively determine an answer. I would say that the scientific studies and surveys are much more reliable empirical evidence than your videos. However I would love to schlep out there and watch them.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and let sleeping dogs lie until the next results are released.

[Lurper]

Sky
Again you are basing your premise on the belief that these reactions will happen to everyone every time. There is no evidence to support that. As I mentioned above, we are now beyond the realm of fact and into the realm of belief. No reasonable person can argue that the effects will happen every time to everyone. Read the studies with an open mind and you'll see. Argue them with a closed mind and they are meaningless. Some people will stand on a belief in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary - the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, the 4 minute mile is beyond man's physical limitations, on and on - the only saving grace is that over time, the evidence becomes proof.
I don't think we can reach a meeting of the minds on this issue.

[STLRN]

Lurper

I am a big believer in science, the problem I find in much of "science" is many of the expert are pushing an agenda vice, true science. A perfect case in point, all the hype about global warming and its connection to man. Most of those pushing the agenda also do it in the name of science, and just like many of the people you cite are PHDs. However many of them push a religion vice true science.

[Lurper]

STLRN
You are absolutely correct. But using global warming as an example, no one claims that the climate is not getting warmer, it is the cause behind it that is disputed. I also know that there are scientists who push their agendas. Whether Lewinsky et al. have an agenda or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that based on my own experience, that of friends, reading books by others on related topics outside and inside the shooting community, studies done on the effects of the mind and mindset on performance, healing, learning, concentration, etc.. I believe that they are correct regardless of whether they have an agenda or not. As I mentioned, at this point in time, neither camp can irrefutably prove their contention.

[STLRN]

Not to get sidelined, but "no one claims that the climate is not getting warmer" is not exactly correct either. I suggest you read Christopher Horner's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." He cited many real climatologist, vice the landscape artists, OBGYNs, plastic surgeon, astronomers who are listed as scientists who say climate actually is going up in temperature. It seems the PHDs in who actually study the climate have a different view than many of the scientist who study other topics. Additionally he cites numerous "inconvenient truths" about data collected methods and who many of the scientist in the consensus of global warming actually are.

That is one reason, I would like to see more medical/physiological personnels views of this and less psychologists' views.

[Lurper]

STLRN
I haven't read Horner's stuff, but I do know one of the most outspoken critics of global warming: Dr.Robert Balling. What I read and was taught at ASU 7 or 8 years ago was that the earth is warming - it has to be - because in geologic time, we are still coming out of the last ice age. Weather recording has not been around for much more than 150 years, so in terms of geologic time that is less than the blink of an eye. What proponents say is that man has accellerated the pace through greenhouse gas emission based primarily on computer models and 150 years of weather data. Opponents say that the warming is a natural occurance.

Similar to our argument here in several ways. I think the most noteworthy is the mechanics of socialization. The media is jumping on the man has caused global warming bandwagon despite the fact that global warming is still just theory. But you mark my words: In a few short years (if not already), the general public (sheeple) will accept that global warming is a fact. It has already started with the "Hollywood effect", that is celebraties pushing the cause, and has also moved past the "CNN effect" which is most "news" agencies pushing the stories without presenting both sides of the argument. They are also "priming" the public by telling them what issues are important and "agenda setting" by presenting their choice issues in the forefront and weighting their coverage to one side. It will soon become an accepted "fact" that man caused global warming in spite of the fact that there is as much data to support either side of the argument. That is an illustration of the effects of socialization in action.

[Skyguy]

Again you are basing your premise on the belief that these reactions will happen to everyone every time.
No, I don't believe that at all.
In fact, I've already said that I'm speaking in generalities.

There are some people that can take a punch that would knock out the average guy. If you are one of the odd folk who have no fear and feel no pain or stress, then more power to ya.

Why do you think that most combat vets will only talk experiences with combat vets? They find comfort in brothers who understand the fears and rarely want to re-visit them.

Empirical evidence and experience (not PhD's and gunwriters) says that most everyone will fail at some point in stressful situations. Training can mitigate fear somewhat, but we're all humans subject to the same frailties and the ultimate fear of dying.

I think that if someone ambushed you and was shooting at you.....that you'd scream, run like a rabbit, lose your fine motor skills and freak out for a bit. It's about our first instinct to live.
.

[Lurper]

SKY
I can give as much evidence that what you say isn't true. While I haven't been ambushed, I have been in a few scrapes and I didn't scream or run like a rabbit. I have talked to many 'nam and Desert Storm vets and have several friends in the SPECOPS community who were in Afghanistan and Iraq. To a man, they have said that when the SHTF, they didn't have time to be scared. It was like being on autopilot and they automatically did what they were trained to do. None of them froze, panicked or lost motor control. Granted the sample size is small - about 35 or 40, but of those, none experienced the debiltating effects that you espouse.

[STLRN]

Reminds me of the Grossman lecture, the Bullet Proof Mind.

During the opening to the lecture he mentioned 1 out of 4 of combat troops admitted to relieving themselves in contact with the enemy. When a paratrooper from the 2nd WWII, was interviewed by Grossman (who has claimed to have interviewed thousands of mil and LEO by this point) his comment on that statistic was 3 out of 4 combat troops are liars.

[Deaf Smith]

STLRN,

Then wouldn't there be a possiblity that the trooper Grossman interviewed was a liar?

[STLRN]

I think the whole point is that, often men and women don't like to admit to some things that happen.

I know allot of people prior to leaving the wire that forces themselves to empty their bowels to prevent this from occurring.

[Skyguy]

I have talked to many 'nam and Desert Storm vets and have several friends in the SPECOPS community who were in Afghanistan and Iraq. To a man, they have said that when the SHTF, they didn't have time to be scared.

Believe this: As soon as they realized it was real and they could die....they were scared....or they were already dead.

Keep in mind that there's strength in numbers. There's courage in numbers.
Same goes for firefighters, cops and SWAT teams. Do you think these people would enter a raging fire alone? Confront armed maniacs alone? Not be scared? Retain fine motor control?
Soldiers are trained to fight with both complex and gross motor skills and to follow orders under pressure. That's soldiering.

But your issue is whether one loses fine motor control in a deadly confrontation; a survival stress situation.
The answer is absolutely yes.

It's well established now that when the sympathetic nervous system activates and one's heart rate reaches about 115 bpm, vasoconstriction and dexterity begin to deteriorate and inhibit our fine motor skills like trigger squeeze and sight alignment.....but 115-145 bpm is also considered optimum combat level performance.
Gross motor group skills are the only muscle movements that don't deteriorate and actually improve as the heart rate increases.

So, here's the deal:
Training, job repetition and familiarity can help to mitigate low levels of stress, fear, heart rate and hormone dump.

But, it's really all about perceived 'control' of the situation.
Take away the 'control' of a deadly situation and heart rate increases drastically, hormone dump is maximized and there will be very high stress leading to fear then terror and possibly panic.
Fight could turn to flight.
.

[David Armstrong]

It is not an absolute, to be an absolute it would happen to everyone every time.
Nonsense. It is an absolute that there will be a car wreck today. The fact that not every car wrecks every time does not change that fact. It is an absolute that everyone can suffere loss of fine motor skills. The fact that not everyone suffers it in the same situation does not change that.
Also, as far as I can tell from readins several of Dr. Lewinsky's articles and other writings, he most certainly does believe it can be controlled.
Everybody says it can be controlled under certain conditions. The issue is that it cannot be controlled under all conditions or at all times.
If these techniques have no "real world" application, then why are these agencies willing to pay good money to be taught them?
Usually these guys are hired to teach a specific skill, such as how to shoot, not how to fight. The various skills are integrated into a fighting platform, which is quite different than a competition platform in most cases. Again, I don't think many say there is no "real world" application, it is that the real world application is frequently different than the competition application.

[Lurper]

I really think we have beat this one to death.
Sky
I have spoken to and read many accounts of vets who did realize they could die and weren't scared. I was a LRRP, I had plenty of contact with guys who when the **** hit the fan were outnumbered, outgunned and on the run. None of them ever said they fell apart under pressure. In fact they said just the opposite. They attributed it to the constant training and repetition of all the immediate action drills we practiced on a nearly daily basis.
I was talking to a guy who was in on the Inchon landing. He said "we were scared until about the time the ramp dropped. After that, things happened so fast the you did what you were trained to do." I can cite hundreds of other examples.
The problem while it may appear to be semantics is not.
You say: a person will lose control under stress.
I say: a person may lose control under stress.
There is a big difference.
Can it happen? Sure. Does it happen? Yes. Can it happen to everyone? Again, yes. Can it happen to the same person in one situation and not another? Yep.
But to say that it will happen is strecthing the truth. It doesn't matter what you say, the evidence exists to show that these reactions can be controlled. Whether you choose to believe it is a personal choice.

DA
Not much I can argue with in your post.
Other than to say that I have run into many people who want to say that the skills that competition shooters develop are only good for competition and have no "real world" application. I would never debate tactics, there are millions out there who have forgotten more than I will ever know. However, technique is another story. The mechanics of shooting are the same - no matter what the target is.

On that note, I am bowing out of this one since I don't see where we are going to go that we haven't already been.

[STLRN]

The training today is much better than it was in any previous wars, I have created and seen summations of training schedules and ammo expenditure reports from both present and past. We shoot what would have been considered ungodly amounts of ammo in the past, spend tons of time on live/hot ranges, doing allot of force on force via MILES and Simunitions. Yet you see guys who still experience those effects that should have been trained out of them. I am sure many aren't even aware of what others see them do, and when asked afterwards the may not be aware of things like putting 4 bursts into a guy or dropping a magazine inadvertently.

[David Armstrong]

Other than to say that I have run into many people who want to say that the skills that competition shooters develop are only good for competition and have no "real world" application.
I too think those people are wrong. The counterpoint, of course, is those who claim that becasue they are good in competition they will also automatically be good in a real gunfight. They won't. They might be, and it will depend in part on their ability to recognize the different skills needed for different outcomes.

[Rob Pincus]

DA,

THanks for making clear the what I believe to be the point of many criticisms of people who have competitive shooting success and then go into the defensive instruction arena.... The same is true of people who have been in lethal critical incidents... living through it does not mean you automatically have anything significant to offer as an instructor.

[Skyguy]

You say: a person will lose control under stress.
I say: a person may lose control under stress.

For the record, I never said that!
I said that as one's stress level rises even the best trained folk are subject to sympathetic nervous system activation and all its debilitating effects.

Remember, you started this thread by saying: "those who claim that under stress you will lose control of your fine motor skills were wrong."

Well, live and learn.
Just a few posts back I said to you: "But your issue is whether one loses fine motor control in a deadly confrontation; a survival stress situation.
The answer is absolutely yes.

It's well established now that when the sympathetic nervous system activates and one's heart rate reaches about 115 bpm, vasoconstriction and dexterity begin to deteriorate and inhibit our fine motor skills like trigger squeeze and sight alignment."

That's it....that's the bottom line. By autonomic design, one 'will' lose his fine motor skills from about 115 heart bpm on up.
.

[matthew temkin]

Rob..you and Skyguy have more patience than myself.
I hope to share a cup of coffee with you on April 4th.
Over and out of here.

[685cmj]

Though this thread has probably gone on way too long already, there have been (as always) some real nuggets of good info. One thing that I have been reminded of is that our bodies were "programmed" to kick into the brute strength mode in mortal danger. That's what the chemical dump is all about and why it happens. It is a fact of human existence. Brute strength mode is simply not conducive to fine motor skills--it was, in fact, made to overwhelm fine motor skills with sheer adrenaline. We were made for powerful fight or flight, not brain surgery, at those times. You can try to be a brain surgeon in times of mortal danger, but....

[Blue Duck]

On this fine motor skills thing, I don't think it is a myth, but it doesn't happen in a quick gunfight, because it takes a little longer for your emotions to get to you.

I am not a cop, But I have shot combat competitions for a long time, in the past. I have had a couple of mexican standoffs, where I was armed, and never felt a lose of fine motor skills, I felt cool, calm and in control of the siduation, because I knew my capabilities.

But on the other hand, I got into an extended family squable, one time, with another person, who was very upset, I was starting to fear that violence would erupt, at anytime, and I was carrying. This is really a bad siduation, because this person had a reputation for resorting to violence, when mad, but at the same time, I knew I didn't want to have to shoot this person, no matter what, I started to leave, and when I got to my truck this person kicked the glass out of a door on the porch.

By this time my nerves were a complete shambles, almost, and I left, but my motor skills were not worth a crap at that time. I let my emotions take over, and it destroyed my fine motor skills. So I know it can happen.

[Deaf Smith]

Didn't Mas Ayoob do a study where they injected adrenaline, or should I say, endorphin, and showed that even with a heart rate of 120 bpm, one could still do complex 'fine motor skills'?

Me thinks is much more that how much adrenaline you have in your system. Like fear. If you can control your fear, or even banish it, you won't loose your fine motor skills. And that's why the samurai code was to consider themselves dead already. They were trying to banish all fear so they would be able to operate better in intense environments.

[STLRN]

It is more than just the chemical cocktail, you would have to trigger the flight or flight response. When that occurs the blood flows away from the extremities, the believe purpose of this to to reduce increase survival for extremity wounds.

[matthew temkin]

Gentlemen...
I just began reading Training At The Speed Of Life by Ken Murray.
The book goes into this in great detail and with a lot of evidence for the reader to make up his own mind on this issue.
It is available at Amazon.

[Deaf Smith]

Welll then that's kind of funny. I'm reading a book by a guy named Joe Foss. He did some stuff way back about 60 years ago. He wrote that while yes, he was scared, he said you got so busy you forgot you were scared. He talked alot about the co-ordination one needed to do the kind of things he did and how with training it became second nature. Some did freeze up, some didn't.

Funny he would say all that and here everyone is talking about freeking out when one get scared. And I would say much of what he did took some fine motor cordination, fast.

You guys do know who Smokie Joe was, don't you?

[STLRN]

Yes and there is also been allot of work saying there are the "ten percent" of natural born killers, who don't seem to suffer or have a much latter onset of the effects. The problem is you won't know who they are until the bullets start flying. No amount of training will replicate what happens in a fight, you can get close, but you never get the same feeling from training or competition.

[OBIWAN]

"living through it does not mean you automatically have anything significant to offer as an instructor."

Other than to teach a conflict avoidance seminar in "what not to do" :D

Gross...fine...who cares....you are not at your best when stress enters the scenario. There are so many variables it becomes a chicken and the egg argument...was his heart rate high because was angry/scared or was he scared/abgry because his heart rate was high

And you never know what will suddenly cause that stress that will trip you up

There are plenty of cases of people who suddenly panic in a situation they have been in plenty of times before...maybe it was something they ate:confused:

I also believe that competition can make you a good /fast shot which can help in a defensive shooting....it can also help you to learn to shoot well under stress

But it does not train you to fight with the weapon...it teaches you to compete with the weapon....

They can be very different

[matthew temkin]

Every war movie talks about being scared.
And no one is saying that one cannot prevail in combat while scared. (Is courage not the ability to do it anyway, even when scared stiff?)
All we are saying is that under stress there may be some loss of fine motor skills and that it may be smart to use weapons that don't require a safety to be pushed off or required complicated techniques.
And a big +1 to the last posts by STLRN and Obiwan.
My feelings exactly.

[Skyguy]

It's all about control of the situation:

If you are ambushed you are very scared, lose fine motor skills and....depending on the intensity of one's fear of dying....definitely go through the gambit of SNS effects. (defense - little control)

If it's your ambush or offense you're afraid you'll die, but do it anyway. (offense - more control)

That's it! We don't need a library of books to explain that.
.

[Deaf Smith]

Better yet, it's smart to train hard and keep in condition yellow so as not to end up being ambushed. One's fine motor control might degenrate to gross motor control, but gross motor control never degenerates to fine motor control.

I can understand Fairbrain's methods in the orient. After all, he had something like 50 rounds per person per year for training with guns that had horrable sights and with people who were definitly not gun people.

But this is America and I think we can do lots better than that. The only thing to avoid is unnessary complexity. Pair down your skill set to what is needed (and you are capable of) and then train hard and often. If you are a Van Cliburn with a shoot'en iron, then the skys the limit. Just make sure you keep your eyes open out there and don't drop the ball.

[matthew temkin]

Anyone can be ambushed.
And anyone can have a bad day.
It is also unpractical to recommend constant training to the majority of gun owners who have neither the time nor the inclination to do this.
Happily there are alternatives to constant training, which blends in nicely with the loss of fine motor skills--should they occur.
BTW..who is Fairbairn?

[BlueTrain]

W.E.Fairbairn and E.A. Sykes were officers in the Shanghai, China, in the 1920's and 1930's. In the 1940's they went to Great Britain and helped train commandos in close combat. Rex Applegate was one of their students. Together they published a book entitled "Shooting to live" in which they outlined their ideas and training methods. One of the more interesting things about them was that the Shanghai Police used mostly Colt 1911 automatics, in .45ACP of course. Their methods could not be said to be controversial at all and for that day, they were rather progressive. Nowadays, some people claim their methods are dated. More likely, the most accurate criticism would be that the book was really written for large police departments. Also, there are gaps in the book in the sense that I am sure many things were taught that did not make it into the book. After all, it is only one book.

They also designed their famous combat knife, the Fairbairn-Sykes commando dagger.

In their book they never mention rifles (shotguns, yes), hunting, and competitive target shooting, other than to say they were opposed to it as a realistic preparation for combat. They do talk about stopping power but refused to be dogmatic and were not very conclusive about it. All in all, it is a thin book. They also do not mention street tactics in any way beyond shooting stances.

The Shanghai Police Department was exceptionally large and well paid and also multinational. There were Europeans, Chinese and Indians officers in the department. Shanghai was considered to be a dangerous city at the time and may still be. At the moment it is a real boom town according to one of my barbers, who is from there.

[David Armstrong]

But this is America and I think we can do lots better than that.
One can think that, but reality seems to indicate that many, perhaps most, of the gown owning and carrying public are definitely not gun people, and shoot less than 50 rounds a year. That is the problem, IMO, with so many of these discussions. In order to defend a point we offer as evidence what is the rare exception while ignoring the more common rule.

One of the more interesting things about them was that the Shanghai Police used mostly Colt 1911 automatics, in .45ACP of course.
Not to nit-pick, but generally the regular police officers carried .380s. It was the Commanding Officers who carried 1911s. Both guns were usually carried chamber empty and with the safety pinned in the OFF position. For some reason traffic officers were usually issued revolvers (.455 Webley, IIRC).

[Deaf Smith]

Actually in Shanghai the Brits did use .45 1911s, but their oriental brothers, being of small stature, used .380 Colt autos. That is from W.E.Fairbairn's own book about what he did there.

The Chinese did not have really any gun handling skills before entering the service (let's just say they had no NRA and no gun rights.) And 50 rounds was it. Up to Fairbairn's time they used pure bullseye shooting, with the other hand in the off pocket, which isn't in anybodys combat book, from Askins to Cooper to Joran.

I'll also say, being here in Texas and seeing lots of CHL students as well as range shooters, that most have some inkling of guns before they enter the course and they most certanly end up with more than 50 rounds per year (but I would not say 50 rounds per month!)

But to bemoan ,and end up by default, expecting training to devolve to, what, never learning anything but having the weapon on ones hand already and spraying the target with burst of several rounds (and yes, Fairbairn did advocate just that) I say is not encouraging. It's a step backwards, not forwards.

Hey, Temkin, strange you would not know Fairbairn, since on Amazon you gave a review of his book.

And yes, I have his book, along with oh, maybe a dozen others about such subjects.

[matthew temkin]

Amazon?
You mean that tribe of large women from Brazil?

[David Armstrong]

Actually in Shanghai the Brits did use .45 1911s, but their oriental brothers, being of small stature, used .380 Colt autos. That is from W.E.Fairbairn's own book about what he did there.
Yes. Commanding Officers, usually British, carried 1911s. Regular officers, primarily Oriental, carried .380s.
I'll also say, being here in Texas and seeing lots of CHL students as well as range shooters, that most have some inkling of guns before they enter the course and they most certanly end up with more than 50 rounds per year
Of course. Almost by definition, folks who go to the range somewhat regularly will shoot. Most shooters do not go to the range regularly, if at all.
But to bemoan ,and end up by default, expecting training to devolve to, what, never learning anything but having the weapon on ones hand already and spraying the target with burst of several rounds (and yes, Fairbairn did advocate just that) I say is not encouraging.
I don't think anyone has said that. I think the point has been that one can utilize natural reactions to enhance effectiveness, and that using the well-trained as an example of what is possible seems contradictory to the more common gun owner skills. Training should never devolve, but good shooting should also not be dependent on engaging in a level of training that most people never achieve.

[BlueTrain]

One source stated that the Shanghai Police used large frame Webleys, in addition to their automatics, was simply because they had them. I believe it stated that it was mainly the Indian personnnel who were issued the revolvers. They also used long guns to some extent and supposedly it was European officers who were issued 1911's.

Another interesting point from today's perspective was that officers coming off their shift would turn in their handguns, which would then be reissued to the next shift. That meant they required about two-thirds the number of handguns as they had officers or two for every three officers. Fairbairn went to some length to defend the use of automatics over revolvers. At the time, there were very few double action automatics. There were a couple before the PP and PPK but it was years before anyone but the Germans used them in 9mm or any caliber that large, as near as I can remember.

Some people have commented that it is easier to train people who have had no previous exposure to firearms. Americans are sometimes accused of all thinking they are experts on firearms, particularly handguns. I don't know if it is true or not but I suspect that adoption of the Beretta took up more time in congress than any airplane ever has, just for that reason.

On the subject of target shooting, although Fairbairn was against it, many well known American lawmen, apparently all from the Southwest, mostly, were also successful in formal target shooters. And for some reason, most of them seemed to have been with the Border Patrol. So it is an arguable point as to the effect of competetive target shooting on gunfighting. But Shanghai was probably more dangerous then than the Great Southwest is even today, also an arguable point.

[Deaf Smith]

Of course. Almost by definition, folks who go to the range somewhat regularly will shoot. Most shooters do not go to the range regularly, if at all.



Then they aren't shooters david, they are just gun owners. That is a BIG difference!

[David Armstrong]

Then they aren't shooters david, they are just gun owners. That is a BIG difference!
Of course, if you choose to define the terms you can make any claims you wish. I would argue that many shooters do not go to the range regularly. But they still shoot. And if a gunowner shoots a BG once, even if that was the only round fired by the owner in 20 years, guess what--the owner is a shooter. Maybe not by your definition, but by traditional and legal definitions they fit the category. But semantics aside, it still seems somewhat counterproductive to use those who are on the upper fringe of training time/experience as an example of what the common shooter is like.

[Lurper]

Okay, I bowed out but decided to step back in for one post.
I think there are two points here that are again being overlooked. They are that everyone should train - more. It is an idealistic and utopian viewpoint, but I believe everyone who carries a firearm for defense has the responsibility to become proficient in using them. The consequences are catastrophic. IMO, there is no excuse for lack of proficiency, this is especially true for those organizations whose members are required to carry a pistol every day.

The second point is that mental training can and has been proven to make the difference in performance under stress/pressure. There is not enough training in this area.

In my mind, it is a defeatist attitude to say that someone is going to lose control or fine motor skills under stress. That just simply is not true. It can't be predicted who or when it will happen. It is likewise defeatist to say that you can't train for it. You can. In fact, the right amount of pressure and stress make you perform better! Ask any Olympic Gold Medalist. The idea is to train physically to the point where the actions (flipping off the safety, drawing, acquiring sights, etc.) become subconcious. It doesn't take that much time to learn. The second part is to raise the comfort zone that your mind operates in - in terms of stress. If you introduce a higher level of stress/pressure to your mind it will adust to operating at that level (you have just expanded your boundaries as well). The next time you are at that level, you will perform better and each subsequent time. Then you raise the bar again. You don't have to go to the range to do this.

Again, it is a utopian view, but it is very real and achievable. Some people just refuse to accept it. That's why 97% of success (shooting and otherwise) is achieved by 3% of those who compete. What do you think makes those 3% different? Some cannot comprehend events that occur outside of their paradigm. They cannot believe that someone can achieve those feats because they cannot themselves. This threatens the foundation of their world, so they simply shut it out and dismiss it as impossible.

[Greg Perry]

At this point, I should probably just let this thread end, but I can't resist the temptation, so here goes:

There are four basic levels of competency regarding any particular skill or set of skills. First, there is unconscious incompetent, as in you are really bad at something but you don't even appreciate how bad you are. An example of this would be an infant learning to walk. They fall down a million times in the process, but their little minds aren't sophistocated enough to understand just how bad they are at it. (Fortunately, both their minds and bodies grow). Second is conscious incompetent, i.e. you are really bad at something but at least you are aware of your lack of skill. An example would be me trying to do perform brain surgery (I'm a lawyer, not a doctor). I would do a bad job, but I would fully appreciate how bad I was. Third is conscious competent, where you can perform a task if you are able to cognitively think your way through it using rational thought. An example of this is me making spaghetti: I can do it, but I have to consciously think about all the ingredients I need and in what order the steps have to be performed. As long as I have the benefit of rational thought, I can do a passable job. Finally is unconscious competent, where you are really good at something without any conscious effort or thought. An example is buttoning your shirt or tying your shoes, something you do flawlessly every day without even realizing it. This is where you want your fighting skills to be, and the only way to get there is repetition, i.e. training. There is a martial arts adage that says: "Repetition is the mother of all skill."

The problem is this: Stress causes body alarm reaction, and the body alarm reaction essentially kills all rational thought. I won't get into all of it here, but the things that have been discussed such as the adrenaline dump and its associated effects such as elevated heart rate, etc. basically switch your brain from cognitve mode (thinking man) to survival mode (wild animal). Thus, when the body alarm fully hits, you can perform very well certain tasks that require gross motor skills like running, kicking, punching, etc., but other things that require rational thought or fine motor skills you can't do at all (crossword puzzles, field stripping your weapon, etc.) In other words, with the body alarm reaction you lose most if not all of your conscious, rational thought, and therefore, your conscious competent skills. Said another way, under stress your performance will revert to whatever level of training you have mastered.

Proper training can minimize and/or delay the onset of the body alarm reaction such that you can still perform surprisingly well under pressure. Here is an example. It is my understanding that in the 1986 Challenger explosion, the pilot and co-pilot were seated up front to "fly" the spacecraft. The other five astronauts were essentially passengers strapped in the back to enjoy the ride until they got into orbit. When the tanks exploded, it took about 2 minutes or so for the shuttle to hit the ocean. During that time, the heart rate of the five in the back shot up to about 175 beats per minute, which indicates they were experiencing the full effects of body alarm reaction. However, the pilot and co-pilot never got above 100 beats per minute. The reason: training. They trained every day on how to keep the craft flying in every conceivable circumstance, going through scenario after scenario. When catastrophe struck, their minds literally kicked into auto-pilot, and they were focused on going through checklist after checklist, all the while plummeting to the earth. They were trained to deal with the worst possible case, and when it happened, they did as they were trained.

Another example: Last April I was on my home late one night when a deer jumped out in front of me. There was nothing I could do, just bam, and she was rolling up my hood and over my roof. I wasn't exactly scared, but it was certainly a startling stimulus. Without even thinking about it, I braked to a stop, pulled over, and shifted into park. However, realizing that I was stopped partially on the roadway and should put my hazards on, I could not seem to find my hazard switch. The lady behind me stopped to see if I was okay. I told her was fine, but I couldn't find my hazard lights. She must have thought I was drunk, sitting there alternately trying to click the end of my turn signal on the left, and then the gear shift on the right of the steering wheel. Finally, she reached in and hit the button on the dash with the big red triangle on it. What happened? The deer running out in front of me was enough to kick in the body alarm reaction. Having been driving for 20 years, my ability to brake, stop the vehicle, and shift into park is an unconscious competent skill. I do it dozens of times every day of my life wihout conscious thought or effort. I don't have to look for the brake or the gear shift. However, I put my hazards on once in a blue moon, and to do so requires conscious thought, which I was incapable of for a few moments after impact due to the adrenaline rushing through my body. My guess is that I was trying to "click" the ends of my turn signal and gear shift because I used to own a car that had them there. It was pretty funny, though, because I was trying so hard yet couldn't seem to figure it out, like I was in a dream.

Proper training will help anybody, but there are indeed some people who have trained themselves to actually take their game up another notch under pressure. The best examples I can think of are Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. When the championship is on the line and the pressure is on, they actually get better. Don't ask me how, because I for one am not wired that way.

So, I would not go so far as to say that the loss of fine motor skills is a myth. However, I would agree that the loss of fine motor skills can be minimized with proper training.

[David Armstrong]

I think there are two points here that are again being overlooked.
I don't think anyone has overlooked the points, it is just that the solution to the points is somewhat impractical in light of reality. Yes, in a perfect world everybody with a gun would go to the range regularly, would be at least a Thunder Ranch Level 1 graduate (or equivalent), would shoot IDPA or IPSC at least once a month, and so on. But the world isn't perfect, and thus we need to recognize and work within the reality of that world.
In my mind, it is a defeatist attitude to say that someone is going to lose control or fine motor skills under stress. That just simply is not true.
And to my mind denying the common occurrence that has been reported over and over simply because sometimes some people have not experienced it is also not true. It can happen to the best of us, so those who are more "normal" need to recognize it and prepare for it.

[Lurper]

DA
It's not a question of normal or not. Everyone can be trained that way. Not everyone wants to be. That is where the rubber meets the road.
In terms of pracitcality, it isn't that impractical. Once someone has the basics down, if they would devote 15 minutes a day, two days a week (or more) they would be able to achieve a much higher level of training. Sadly, few people including LEO's place that high a value on training. When one potentially faces taking or losing a life (including their own) on a daily basis that really shouldn't be too much to ask. That is the reality, it's not that it cannot be done, it's that so few care (or have the discipline) to do it.

[Zak Smith]

Force on force training teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter and most shooters revert to instinctive response.
Let's see what these FOF shooters "reverted to":

http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/smaller/A100_0375_img_cc.jpg (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0375_img_cc.jpg) [ link to LARGER image ] (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0375_img_cc.jpg)
http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/smaller/A100_0418_img.jpg (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0418_img.jpg) [ link to LARGER image ] (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0418_img.jpg)
http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/smaller/A100_0421_img.jpg (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0421_img.jpg) [ link to LARGER image ] (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0421_img.jpg)
http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/smaller/A100_0439_img.jpg (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0439_img.jpg) [ link to LARGER image ] (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=A100_0439_img.jpg)
http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/smaller/DSC00349.jpg (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=DSC00349.jpg) [ link to LARGER image ] (http://demigodllc.com/~zak/DigiCam/TR-FOF-2005/?small=DSC00349.jpg)

[Deaf Smith]

Zak, don't confuse them with facts. Some might think if you practice, really practice, you might retain that skill and use it under pressure.

And David,

If you own a car, but never drive but once a year, you sure aren't much of a driver, are you? If you ski once a year, are you a skier? Owning a gun does not make you a shooter, nor does it make you capable of using it well. Way to many people buy a gun for protection but never really get familiar with it. We see that all the time on the range. People putting on their ear muffs with loaded guns in their hands, others switching the gun holding hand to fetch a magazine to load it. And then their groups, at very modist ranges, look more like a grenade fragment pattern.

So, yea, you have your defininition, and most others have another.

[David Armstrong]

It's not a question of normal or not.
Of course it is. If your defense of something is "Look at what the top 2% can do" it isn't that applicable to those not in the top 2%.
Everyone can be trained that way.
I would certainly question that. More importantly, even if everyone could, would it be an appropriate use of resources? Everyone can probably be trained to do lots of things, but the investment in time and resources counters the value of the training.
Once someone has the basics down, if they would devote 15 minutes a day, two days a week (or more) they would be able to achieve a much higher level of training.
Of course. That isn't the question. The question is if that investment in training would eliminate the loss of fine motor skills. That is the issue, I thought, not whether training is beneficial but how much training is needed to over-ride natural bady reactions.
When one potentially faces taking or losing a life (including their own) on a daily basis that really shouldn't be too much to ask.
Nice thought, but again, it takes time and resources, and those are both very limited and for many already used for other pursuits.

[David Armstrong]

Let's see what these FOF shooters "reverted to":
Ummm, didn't all of these FoF shooters know in advance that they were going into a situation? Not much real surprise there, I would suggest.

[David Armstrong]

If you own a car, but never drive but once a year, you sure aren't much of a driver, are you?
OK, now we have changed things and are trying to discuss levels of expertise instead of is/isn't. Quite a different issue. So I think you are agreeing that yes, even if you only drive once a year you are a driver at that time.
If you ski once a year, are you a skier?
Yes.
Owning a gun does not make you a shooter, nor does it make you capable of using it well.
Strange I don't recollect anyone ever saying that it did. FWIW there are some shooters who are not gun owners and there are gun owners who are not shooters.
So, yea, you have your defininition, and most others have another.
Nice claim, little proof. I tend to use standard definitions, so I would assume that is the norm (that is why they become the standard). You can invent your own definitions if you wish, but don't expect others to take them too seriously. SHOOTER: One that shoots. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1st definition).

[Lurper]

Quote:
It's not a question of normal or not.

Of course it is. If your defense of something is "Look at what the top 2% can do" it isn't that applicable to those not in the top 2%.

In regards to that, if the top 2% can do it, anyone CAN. Most won't. It is what makes that top 3% different that is the key. It is the way they think and their mental game. We all have the same physical and mental make up to a certain extent. No one possesses a particular configuration in their brain that makes them a better shooter. In that respect, we are all basically the same. So, we can all be trained to that level. The difference is in discipline and the price one is willing to pay. That's all.

If you carry a firearm everyday in no matter what capacity, IMO if you can't devote 15 mins twice a week to train, then your values are skewed.

[Zak Smith]

Ummm, didn't all of these FoF shooters know in advance that they were going into a situation? Not much real surprise there, I would suggest.
The statement I was refuting was:

Force on force training teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter and most shooters revert to instinctive response.
That is EXACTLY what this was-- and the majority of the students had never done FOF training before. The students did not know what the situations would be nor if they would be "fight" or "not fight" scenarios.

[Deaf Smith]

Several years ago, my wife and I were walking by the UC building on the University of Texas at Austin campus. Well while we were walking I had this whistle in my nose (yea yea, I know the Senfield jokes.) When my wife heard the whistle, she, being startled, turned in my direction and to me seemed to be looking over my shoulder. Fearing attack, I swapped directions with both hands up ready to fight (not covering my face, as is natural, but fist closed, right side arm forward, left side elbow shielding my diaphram, and a fairly good 'L' stance with bladed body.)

Was that a natural reaction? The turning was, but the way I held my hands and my 'stance' sure wasn't. This was all because of training. No you don't forget training if you train hard. And the more thorough the training the more the 'fine motor skills' will hold up. That and a good set of guts will get you through the situation.

[Skyguy]

Force on force training teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter and most shooters revert to instinctive response.
Let's see what these FOF shooters "reverted to":
Those pics only prove the point that there is no fear of dying in those FoF, cops and robbers scenarios.
Why? They don't even assume the instinctive combat crouch or move off the x. They aren't scared because they know they're perfectly safe and well protected and it's only BB guns.
Geeeeez. It's a game.....

As for FoF, it only rocks....at first.

It's great 'tactics' training. But it quickly loses its stress-training effect as the players realize that there is no 'real' threat or 'fear of dying' and they attempt maneuvers that they probably wouldn't do in reality.

I say, take off all the protective gear.
Use the BB guns against only a tank top, shorts and goggles. That might put a tiny bit of fear and pain in the game and produce more realistic reactions.

IMO, one should train in the basic skills that remain useable in very high stress encounters.

Train in the fear-of-dying physiological and mental responses that one 'will' default to in a sudden CQ gunfight....such as 'instinctively' move off the x as they face the threat, assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, extend arm/s, one-handed, tight grip and squeeze off multiples......because that's how most people will react to the fight.
.

[matthew temkin]

Those pictures show a lot of natural reactions going on..
Shoulders squared to the target, gun hands extended, eyes focused on the threat and..dare I surmise..some two handed point shooting?
In other words, several solutions grounded in the tradition of gross motor skills.
Interesting to see no Weaver stances in the bunch.
In some of the photos--especially in the last two--I think the shooter would have been able to move off line if they had one hand on the gun rather than two, but hey...I sure as hell do not want to appear dogmatic.

[Zak Smith]

Those pics only prove the point that there is no fear of dying in those FoF,
No, they directly refute your statement that FOF "teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter".

It doesn't. Those photos of actual FOF training prove it.

They don't even assume the instinctive combat crouch or move off the x.
You commit the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion ("begging the question") with the assumption that a reaction will be a "combat crouch", to prove that it is not realistic FOF training. That just logically makes no sense.

Second, you are factually incorrect to assume nobody is moving off the X. If you look at what is happening in each of the photos, you can see the movement. All the students are moving backward and/or laterally.

Sometimes the facts agree with you and sometimes they don't. In this case, they don't, and they refute your earlier assertion.

[Zak Smith]

Matthew,

I can only speak for myself, but I used the exact same aiming techniques I use in competition, practice, and training, which range from aiming using a physical index (kinesthetic awareness) to strong front sight focus.

As for Weaver.. I never shoot Weaver, the iso is more versatile and more natural.

[matthew temkin]

In other words Zak..you use both sighted and point shooting.
Which is a good thing.
I still think the last two photos show bad tactics..meaning it appears the good guy is planted rather than trying to shoot while moving offline.
( And if he is, in fact, in motion, he would find it a lot more natural to move with only one hand on the gun.)
And, IMHO, he would be better served with one handed shooting in these situations, so as to have a free hand available for a strike/parry/block.
I would also love to place a Weaver trained shooter in these type situations and see how they would react.
Are all of the photos of you, or are other shooters being shown?

[Lurper]

I think part of the problem for some derives from the term "stance". Stance is just a word used so that people can understand what you are trying to convey. What we teach is a "natural" stance. It differs from an isoceles stance even though it looks similar. A true isoceles has both feet in line, facing the target. A natural stance typically has the weak foot slightly forward. The natural stance is a "stance" only in the sense that it is a platform for the gun. It is standing the way the body naturally does. It is never fixed or rigid. In fact its biggest advantage is fluidity. From a natural stance, you can move easily in any direction. Partly because you are relaxed to begin with, so unlike Weaver, you don't have to relax to move. Your upper body and lower body are totally independant of each other. That's what allows you to shoot from any position on any terrain, standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, smooth ground, rough ground, inclines, declines, you name it.

[Lurper]

Sky the problem with your premise is that fear of death requires conscious thought. Many don't have time to experience fear (or conscious thought) because events unfold too quickly. If you are trained to the point that your actions are subconscious, you will not have conscious thought. That is my whole point.


Fear only exists in the future, it cannot exist in the present. It is based on one of many outcomes. If you live and exist in the present moment, you banish fear.

[Zak Smith]

I still think the last two photos show bad tactics..meaning it appears the good guy is planted rather than trying to shoot while moving offline.
Seriously guys. I know a photograph only captures an instant in time, but you can see motion in the pictures. One foot off or partially off the ground and stance which would be unbalanced in the absence of movement are big clues. Like I said in post #150, guys are moving off the x rearward and/or laterally in all these photos. Some are moving fast (e.g. the last one) and some are moving slow (#4) but all are moving.

As for shooting one-handed, I'll leave it up for debate. For me: not yet at grappling distance (out of arms reach) and ability to deliver multiple hits while moving fast = good two-handed grip.

Are all of the photos of you, or are other shooters being shown?
There are 5 people shown, 2 role players and 3 students, and the same set of people is not in all the photos. I think you have your answer.

-z

[Skyguy]

Second, you are factually incorrect to assume nobody is moving off the X. All the students are moving backward and/or laterally.
Some look like they're in 'stand and deliver'.....not moving.
The X represents the best directions to move off the X....diagonally if possible and not just straight back. Training should also incorporate one handed shooting.
You commit the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion ("begging the question") with the assumption that a reaction will be a "combat crouch", to prove that it is not realistic FOF training. That just logically makes no sense.
Oh, really? Ever been shot at? Did you straighten up or crouch?

There is no "logic" in our instinctive responses to 'real' fear of dying. We all will automatically crouch and try to move. Many will scream.

Because there is no fear of dying or pain involved, FoF is great for learning some tactics, less so for learning stress-driven responses.
Train in the way your body will instinctively respond to being shot at....and you'll be well served for self-defense.
.

[Skyguy]

Sky the problem with your premise is that fear of death requires conscious thought. Many don't have time to experience fear (or conscious thought) because events unfold too quickly. If you are trained to the point that your actions are subconscious, you will not have conscious thought. That is my whole point.


Fear only exists in the future, it cannot exist in the present. It is based on one of many outcomes. If you live and exist in the present moment, you banish fear.
Philosophically good points, Lurper. Hard to argue that we will ponder our death in moments of action.
But we all have an instinctive fear of dying....and we all will react in certain predictable ways, both physically and mentally.

Best that we train in those predictable ways. Like using gross motor skills because the fine skills won't work in extreme danger.
.

[matthew temkin]

Zak..are any of those other people trained in the Weaver stance or are they all mainly MI shooters?
I ask because it is my belief that quite often it is the Weaver that falls apart under stress...even if one is well trained in it's use.

[STLRN]

How many times have they run through the simunition shoots? Just an observation from some one who has run sims in training and took those same people to war later. The first time they run sims most are a soup sandwich, I mean literally guys dropping their rifles, doing the helicopter while pulling the trigger, etc. The more they run through it, the better they get. This is part of the "stress inoculation" that LtCol Grossman discusses. When those same people get into their first fire fight, they perform closer to the first time they were under sims, but not nearly as spastic. As they see more combat, their performance improves.

[Skyguy]

.

Crouch
Move off the X

http://photos.imageevent.com/leemutlee/colt/small/crouch%20move%20off%20x%201.JPG
.

[Lurper]

Sky
The question I have re: your picture is:
Have those guys been trained to crouch while or before moving? Also, are they crouching because they were behind cover? The guy in the foreground obviously isn't shooting. Their level of training is also a consideration. You can't expect those who are not well trained to respond the same way those who are would. It's like the difference between a cherry and a veteran.

Also:
....and we all will react in certain predictable ways, both physically and mentally.
It's really not predictable, if it was you would be able to predict who, what, where and when the effect would occur. You can't. That is why so many try to study the phenomenon . What makes the difference between those who lose control and those who don't? Studies and experience indicate that it is training (and mental training) that make the difference.

Think about it this way:
I'll use the Son Tay prison raid as an example. A nearly exact replica of the prison was built so the raiders could reherse their actions. When the actual raid occured, things went exceptionally well. Part of the reason is because the raiders spent so much time rehersing. If they hadn't it would have been nothing but a clusterf**k on the ground. Take that down to a smaller scale: think about just rehersing the mechanics of shooting to the point where you never have to consciously think about them. Your mind makes the association that every time I have a firearm in my hands, this is what I do.

We will probably never reconcile our views on the issue. You will not convince me that fear of death is even a consideration until and unless you are wounded, down to your last rounds or see your executioner approaching. I also know from personal experience and from talking with others that it is just as likely that you will perform as you are trained to as not. I don't really believe it is fair or accurate to say that at this point in time there is definitive proof either way. The jury is still out.


I'm sorry, it really boils down to what you believe. But if you watch, you will see more and more evidence supporting the contention that it can be overcome. You will see more and more emphasis on the mental aspect of training. Hopefully, one day, mental training will become part of a system of standardized training for those who depend on firearms every day.

[Zak Smith]

Some look like they're in 'stand and deliver'.....not moving.
They are all moving, back and/or laterally. Here's what was happening, since I was an eyewitness to all these situations:

#1. student is retreating more or less straight to the rear and getting shot

#2. student is moving backwards and drawing at instant assailent draws knife

#3. cont. from #2, student continues to move away from knife assailent while continuing to deliver fire. note that knife assailent is no longer visible in frame, distance has been gained. the next thing student does is to move sideways (left)

#4 student has moved back and to the right, though at this point he is moving slower than he should (note proximity of knife assailent).

#5. student started out near front left bumper when assailent drew knife, he backed up around the front and right-hand side of the car (presumably used as obstruction) while delivering 5 rounds into knife assailent. you can see the last UTM marker impacting the knife assailent's shirt in this picture. student is moving pretty fast right here.

As far as what worked and what didn't work.. in some of these students and got shot or stabbed and in some of them they didn't. I am pretty sure the student in #1 sustained multiple hits. The guy in 2, 3, and 5 didn't get stabbed or shot in those two scenarios. I don't remember if the knife guy made it to the student in #4, but he is really close...

Oh, really? Ever been shot at? Did you straighten up or crouch?
There is no "logic" in our instinctive responses to 'real' fear of dying. We all will automatically crouch and try to move. Many will scream.
Because there is no fear of dying or pain involved, FoF is great for learning some tactics, less so for learning stress-driven responses.
If you want to speculate that people act differently in "real" stress than training stress exercises, that's fine. I would be interested to see scientifically-valid evidence supporting either position. What you have offered is speculation.

The only reason I posted was to refute your statement, quote

FOF "teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter".
That is false, demonstrated by these photos. All you have to do is agree that you mis-stated that point and I'll shut up about it.

Zak..are any of those other people trained in the Weaver stance or are they all mainly MI shooters?
I really don't know, sorry. Most of them had been to at least one defensive pistol school, some of them had many, but I don't know all their backgrounds and training preferences.

How many times have they run through the simunition shoots?
Not sure if you were talking to me or not. But two of those three students had never shot FOF before. I think the student in #1 may have, but I don't remember for certain. This was not the first exercise of the class, but all exercises were different and all were blind.

[Deaf Smith]

Isn't it passing strange Bill Jordan, of the Border Patrol, the same one who wrote, "No Second Place Winner", wrote that one should stand erect when shooting in a gunfight. Now I kind of think he was in quite a few gun fights, and he would know if one crouched or not.

So I would not spend much time worrying about if you are gonna crouch or not. Bring the dang gun up and shoot.

[matthew temkin]

From page 106 of Applegate's book Kill Or get Killed..
.."There will be times when immediate circumstances will not allow the shooter to use the crouch, but in most cases this will be his basic firing position.
The instinctive pointing method, however, can be equally accurate and effective from an upright standing position."
And I am sure the same applies to sighted shooting.

[Sweatnbullets]

Not sure if you were talking to me or not. But two of those three students had never shot FOF before. I think the student in #1 may have, but I don't remember for certain. This was not the first exercise of the class, but all exercises were different and all were blind.

The first thing that I learned in FOF was how my "conditioned" responses got me dead early on and every time. Stand and deliver, extremely controlled movement, back peddeling, and trying to get to the sights led to me being a BB/knife sponge. But Luckily I learn fast. An explosive move off of the line of attack, followed up with dynamic movement and threat focused skills proved to be much more effective and efficient.

My "taking hits/cuts" ratio dropped dramatically once I threw out my "conditioned" response with almost no loss to my "making hits" ratio.

What I reverted back to was the natural reactions of a kid that grew up with BBgun/rock/orange wars..... for the hell of it.

"To hit and not be hit"..... because being hit was usually a lot more substantial than it is with airsoft or simunitions.

From what I see in the pictures we are seeing a good example of the lessons of what not to do and why. What I see in the pictures is "mutual death." But that should be the first lesson inside of any quality FOF.

Hopefully the lessons were learned and the students progressed into something much more effective and efficient than the conditioned responses.

[Zak Smith]

Agreed. I actually posted my AAR of the class here 9/2005. Also note that only one assailent in those pictures has a gun, and the one guy fighting a pistol-armed assailent sure is a bullet sponge.

[Sweatnbullets]

Also note that only one assailent in those pictures has a gun, and the one guy fighting a pistol-armed assailent sure is a bullet sponge.

Good point Zak, I am going to edit my post to correct my error.

[David Armstrong]

So, we can all be trained to that level. The difference is in discipline and the price one is willing to pay. That's all.
Sorry, but that is just wrong. In essense, it seems, you are saying that if we all just practice enough we can all equal the basketball playing ability of Michael Jordan or the sniping ability of Carlos Hathcock and so on. Even if that were true, which I doubt, we get back to the idea that just because one "can" be trained to that level doesn't mean it is a good investment of time and resources.

[David Armstrong]

That is EXACTLY what this was-- and the majority of the students had never done FOF training before. The students did not know what the situations would be nor if they would be "fight" or "not fight" scenarios.

But they all knew they were in a non-lethal training scenario, they knew in advance that they would be confronted with a shot/no-shoot situation, they knew when that situation would begin, and there was little if any true surprise to it. Thus I question whether or not the fact that the students maintained a preset type of response is indicative of what would happen in an actual incident.
If you want to speculate that people act differently in "real" stress than training stress exercises, that's fine. I would be interested to see scientifically-valid evidence supporting either position.
Although it is not a scientific test, I think that the experiences of the NTI are pretty indicative. Several participants, well-known trainers, have commented on how quickly the trained response they are used to and that they regularly see in others disappears in truly unpredictable situations.

[David Armstrong]

It's really not predictable, if it was you would be able to predict who, what, where and when the effect would occur.
This is one of those times when defining terms becomes very important. Predictability comes ina variety of forms. Some are very precise (fine), some are very broad (gross). I cannot predict which number the ball will land in when the roulette wheel is spun each time, but we can accurately predict how many times it will land on a spot over time.
But if you watch, you will see more and more evidence supporting the contention that it can be overcome.
I haven't seen any evidence that it can be overcome. There is evidence that the onset can be delayed or the set point can be raised, but given the right circumstances it will occur for with virtually everyone.