The science of situational awareness?

[Evan Thomas]

This article has some interesting information on what factors contribute to "situational awareness," loosely defined as the ability to perceive threats. Some unsurprising findings, such as that training helps, and stress and anxiety hurt... but it seems there are big individual differences in things like the visual ability to detect little things that are out of whack, and the ability to pay attention to an emotional response to things being out of whack -- given that the emotional response may occur before you're consciously aware that something is wrong...

Just an excerpt:

In Battle, Hunches Prove to Be Valuable
New York Times, 27 July '09
"In war, anxiety can run as high as the Iraqi heat, and neuroscientists say that the most perceptive, observant brain on earth will not pick up subtle clues if it is overwhelmed by stress.

"In the Army study of I.E.D. detection, researchers found that troops who were good at spotting bombs in simulations tended to think of themselves as predators, not prey. That frame of mind by itself may work to reduce anxiety, experts say.

"The brains of elite troops also appear to register perceived threats in a different way from the average enlistee, said Dr. Martin P. Paulus, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Diego, and the V.A. San Diego Healthcare System. At the sight of angry faces, members of the Navy Seals show significantly higher activation in the insula than regular soldiers, according to a just-completed study.

"'The big question is whether these differences perceiving threat are natural, or due to training,' Dr. Paulus said."

Umm, well, they probably involve both... hate folks who think everything's either/or....

[Kyo]

i think its both. the confidence thing helps a crap ton imo. but training raises confidence. its a thin line

[hogdogs]

"In the Army study of I.E.D. detection, researchers found that troops who were good at spotting bombs in simulations tended to think of themselves as predators, not prey. That frame of mind by itself may work to reduce anxiety, experts say.

Funny! I never been in the military, I have an excellent "close proximity" SA (vision loss shortened SA range) and I consider my self the APEX PREDATOR no matter where I am at... Not a constant thought but I have often noted the folks with no clue of their surrondings thinking... They are dang lucky I ain't really hungry right now.
It was the eradication of venomous snakes that caused the typical loss of situational awareness!!! The proof I am right is the low number of snake bit urbanites! If folks had to face risk with every step they would be much more aware... Unfortunately some of us realize this risk is most likely going to be from a human who is preying upon the innocent folks...
Brent

[booker_t]

I agree, to make it either/or is a poor way to approach the question.

Some people are better athletes than others, some better chess players, and some better soldiers. While there's some overlap between the skills of all three, the best chess player isn't going to be the best soldier, and the most fit/sharp soldier isn't going to be the best athlete. There's a set of genetic components, training, and mental state that all contribute to one's success in a particular field.

Likewise, there's a reason people who make it to be Navy SEALs do so. They have a particular set of qualities that make the challenge a little less intimidating than for those who drop out. That isn't to say that people who train harder than anybody else and put themselves in a mental state only focused on becoming a SEAL can't make it through as well. There's an old sports saying, that "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard."

To put it another way, somebody with a great set of genetics to start is going to benefit more from specialized training than somebody whose baseline is lower. A person with excellent memory, some creativity, patience and spacial visualization is likely to be a better chess player naturally than somebody with poor memory, although probably not much better. With coaching, I imagine the skilled person will make significantly more progress than the non-skilled.

Another piece of this is learning styles. Different people learn different ways. It may be that people who become SEALs all learn in similar ways, and so their training is extremely effective. The aggregate of Enlisted, NCOs and junior Officers learn in all sorts of different ways and the training isn't directed towards those learning styles, so the training isn't as effective as it could be if training was tailored to individual soldiers' strengths.

Do they still teach the OODA Loop? Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, by Col. John Boyd.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

It was the eradication of venomous snakes that caused the typical loss of situational awareness!!! The proof I am right is the low number of snake bit urbanites! If folks had to face risk with every step they would be much more aware... Unfortunately some of us realize this risk is most likely going to be from a human who is preying upon the innocent folks...

Yep, the potential for snakes does, as they say, concentrate the mind. I grew up in rattlesnake country, and by the time I was old enough to step foot outside the house on my own, I knew not to put my hands/feet anywhere I couldn't see -- up on a ledge, over a log, whatever -- I knew to LOOK FIRST by the time I was five or so.

I'm always struck, when I get into the back country, by the way my "filters" go down. Everything is potentially relevant if I'm canoeing somewhere remote, for example: the terrain, the sky, the sound of the river, and I'm pretty much open to all of it, so that I will notice the anomaly that might be a life-saver. Even more so out hunting, obviously, although I tend to be paying more attention to the "micro" level of things than to the "macro" stuff.

But the thing about urban environments is that you have to spend so much energy filtering stuff that's irrelevant: advertising, traffic noise, general ugliness, not to mention all those people. And once you start "filtering" people -- that whole don't-make-eye-contact, don't-acknowledge-they-exist thing -- it gets harder to notice who's acting funny...

I guess that's one reason so many folks, especially city ones, these days, have to be plugged into some electronic gadget all the time -- the iPod or whatever does the filtering for them. Environment? What environment? They're in their own little world...

[Brian Pfleuger]

But the thing about urban environments is that you have to spend so much energy filtering stuff that's irrelevant: advertising, traffic noise, general ugliness, not to mention all those people. And once you start "filtering" people -- that whole don't-make-eye-contact, don't-acknowledge-they-exist thing -- it gets harder to notice who's acting funny...

Interesting theory there.... I'll bet there's something to that.

Like most everything, I'd say there a solid mixture of environment and "wiring". Just like some people have a better sense than others of when someone is lying or even just not a "good person", even when there are no obvious "reasons".

For example, there have been three people in my entire life, with whom I have spent a considerable amount of time, that give me that "something's not right" feeling. Two of the three have eventually confirmed my gut feeling and the jury's still out on number 3, but you can bet I'm careful.

[Evan Thomas]

For example, there have been three people in my entire life, with whom I have spent a considerable amount of time, that give me that "something's not right" feeling. Two of the three have eventually confirmed my gut feeling and the jury's still out on number 3, but you can bet I'm careful.

Huh.

Peetza, can you say more about that? What kind of "not right" were these folks? Was the gut feeling something you had right away about them? Do you have a sense of what cues you were picking up?

I'm curious because one of the things I found most interesting in that article was the implication that a hunch, a gut feeling, was a reaction to cues that produced an emotional, sort of pre-cognitive response -- and that people differ in how fast they're able to notice that they're reacting emotionally to cues they haven't yet picked up at a conscious level. Which sounds sort of obvious when you say it, but it would be neat to have a factual, physiological understanding of something like "having a sixth sense for danger."

And I bet that having a "sixth sense" for people or for situations might be two different abilities -- someone might have one or the other to a higher degree...

[Brian Pfleuger]

Peetza, can you say more about that? What kind of "not right" were these folks? Was the gut feeling something you had right away about them? Do you have a sense of what cues you were picking up?

They were people who had the appearance and demeanor of being "good" people. They turned out to be "wolves in sheep's clothing", so to speak. I mean, we're not talking serial killers, just basically nasty people out to make themselves look like the good guy, no matter if it means hurting or destroying other people.

Yes, the feeling I had about all 3 of them was immediate but I have no idea why. It's like I can just look at them and KNOW that they are not what they are trying to look like they are, even though every body else seems to think that those same people are "OK".

This is not to say that there haven't been people who were the same way that I DIDN'T have that feeling about but when I have had that feeling, I have not been wrong yet, with one still pending.

[MLeake]

... have traditionally been pretty good predictors of character, in my experience.

Some of them love everybody, and some don't like anybody, but the better ones tend to be amazingly good judges of character.

For that matter, so do horses.

I wonder how much a regular interaction with animals helps humans develop their own intuitions?

[Hornett]

I'm always struck

Don't say that right after talking about rattlesnakes.

I find I am more aware when I am in the woods.
I also think I am far more aware of surroundings than my non hunting friends.

I have been practicing situational awareness since being on this board, but it is difficult with the everyday drone of life.
Getting away and into the outdoors has to be a awareness heightener.

[booker_t]

but it is difficult with the everyday drone of life. Getting away and into the outdoors has to be a awareness heightener.

I'd argue it's the other way around.

Practicing layups all day doesn't improve your jump shot. As a city guy who spends significant time in the country and around country people, being fully aware in crowded cities, surrounded by noise, is a thrill for me. Plug in your iPod and it is even harder, but having that iPod in just helps you blend even more. Every so often in DC, NYC, other cities, I'll notice other people who are just as aware of the overall scene as I am, among a crowd of people wearing virtual blinders.

It's fascinating, because when you go to the country it's not always a complete reversal. Some people are alert, some are oblivious. People are people regardless of their environment, it just manifests differently.

[Kyo]

sixth sense exists. Its called the danger sense, fear, self preservation, bad feelings, whatever else you want to call it. It is there to make sure you are ok. It is genetically put into you from your parents, and is also a learned behavior throughout your life.
Perfect example is someone who has been T-boned before. That person will look a few more times before they go because of that self preservation and experience.
Likewise a person who just has a bad feeling and then something bad actually happens, that is a warning sign for the same reason. Depends on how you look at it

[ChapNelson]

Do they still teach the OODA Loop? Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, by Col. John Boyd.

Yep, although fewer and fewer first term service members are able to grasp it than back in the old days when I was a SNCO. LtCol Grossman has had a good impact with his "sheepdog" analogies in mental hardening. Just finished up 2nd tour to OIF with a Marine Infantry BN (now on a shore tour). We've used a lot of different techniques to develop mental hardeness in our folks, and frankly there is anecdotal evidence that this generation is less equipped to think like a sheepdog, so the training has to drop to a different level. High rates of prior medication for mental/behavioral health are a factor. Lots of social/familial factors.

If you follow Grossman's line of reasoning, 98% of people are sheep, 1% are sheepdogs, and 1% are wolves. I'd say my experience would generally support those proportions. Lots of wolves are making it through the recruiting process these days; I helped two sociopaths out of the Marine Corps in one month last year.

[booker_t]

Kyo, there is a difference between having a feeling and something being a sense.

Fear is a feeling you have, excited by various stimuli both internal and external. Fear can manifest itself in many ways, from typical fight or flight response, to a complete inability to act or think rationally. Having a "bad feeling" or taking extra precaution as a result of past experience is not a sense, it is merely a response to stimuli.

That being said, the compound product of experience, your five senses, and fear, may result in feelings often referred to as gut instinct, a hunch, a sixth sense, or otherwise. This is not a sense in and of itself, however, it is a very valid (typically) human response that allows your brain to convey one simple message that has been distilled down from a plethora of experiences and feelings. That singular message (your gut) allows you to assess a situation, think clearly and act quickly and decisively without being bogged down by recalling and analyzing tons of memory data.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What we are talking about is learning cues that you can pick up pre-attentively. Meaning you don't have to deliberately concentrate to detect the presence of whatever it is. It could be danger or the ability of an affineur to know when the Appenzeller is ripe.

With danger cues - you have a fast circuit that runs through the amygdala to activate emergency responses, before conscious apprehension. That's what we call your gut. Your real gut only contributes when it decides to poop in your pants.

Items can reach this level of process by being genetically preprogrammed or thorough learning and reps.

No special secret sense - just using what you got with training. This research comes out of the selective attention literature which was always related to practical applications, esp. in emergency and military situations.

Three cheers for cognitive psychology!

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Dogs...
... have traditionally been pretty good predictors of character, in my experience.

Excellent point. Mine comes to work with me, and the few times I've had someone come into the shop who's given me a bad feeling, she's reacted the same way -- and normally she's eager to greet people. When she doesn't react well to someone, I pay attention.

One question this raises for me is what role sense of smell might play in some of this, especially as it relates to people? We say casually, "Something doesn't smell right," and I wonder if it can literally be true with people. If so, it's another cue we'd be likely to notice at a less-than-conscious level, I think. And I wonder if it's trainable, and how you'd do that...

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

What we are talking about is learning cues that you can pick up pre-attentively. Meaning you don't have to deliberately concentrate to detect the presence of whatever it is. It could be danger or the ability of an affineur to know when the Appenzeller is ripe.

Yes, exactly. And the interesting question is how much it is trainable, and how you go about it. One can also conclude from the research described in the article that one reason realistic training is so important is that it's necessary to overcome, through repetition and desensitization, the generalized stress responses which impair your ability to perceive things on that pre-attentive level.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While training smell isn't my thing - the level of processing is also called: automaticity. How you get there is by training and reps and training and reps. Also mental imaging of the responses helps when you aren't actually do it.

[Evan Thomas]

And as long as we're getting into the neural underpinnings of cognition, or whatever it is we're talking about, there's also research showing that what we think of as "the present moment" is actually integrated, by our brains, over about three seconds' worth of sensory inputs -- which goes another little way toward explaining how we're able (on a good day, perhaps, and with training ) to react to things "before we're aware of them."

[Dragon55]

You do have a 6th sense. My grandmother always told me pay attention to it. All of us have been in situations or places that just didn't feel right. That's because there was something that was not right.

I'm not sure how it applies to this discussion in regards to survival but some of us also have another innate skill. I'm constantly spotting wildlife while driving ... groundhogs, rabbits, deer, etc. It blows my mind. I have stopped the car so I can point them out.

[booker_t]

I'm constantly spotting wildlife too... hookers, drug dealers, gangbangers and vagrants.

But, unlike you, I'm not stopping the car.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Vanya - there's a large training literature on how to give people these abilities. You are correct - they clearly point out that realistic training gives people automatic schema for emergencies. They find it in fire training, piloting, military, etc.

It's not mystical or ESP or the Force - just cog. sci. !!

No sixth sense based on the unknown - just trained use of what we have. For example, it was figured out how outfielders catch baseballs hit to them. Is that mystical?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Vanya - there's a large training literature on how to give people these abilities. You are correct - they clearly point out that realistic training gives people automatic schema for emergencies. They find it in fire training, piloting, military, etc.

Yes, of course there is... but what I'm also trying to point out is that having "automatic schema for emergencies," which is largely a matter of training responses -- as you put it, "thorough learning and reps" -- is just one part of a picture which ought, for civilians, to include training in everyday perceptual skills, in much the same way that drivers can be trained in "attention-paying" behaviors like keeping their eyes moving, scanning well ahead on the road, etc. Many (most?) people don't choose to train as if they lived in a war zone, nor want to meet the world with that mindset; but there are specific "attention-paying" abilities and skills which can be cultivated in order to build an effective everyday level of situational awareness...

It's not mystical or ESP or the Force - just cog. sci. !!

No sixth sense based on the unknown - just trained use of what we have. For example, it was figured out how outfielders catch baseballs hit to them. Is that mystical?

Good grief! Of course it isn't. I'm a bit bewildered that you'd read anything of the sort into my posts. I'd never insult you -- or other experts in this stuff -- by suggesting you're not perfectly well aware of the literature in this field... other people may not be, however, and that Times piece seemed like a good starting point.

It's common -- for example, in "what did I do wrong?" threads in this forum -- for people to point out that if the person had been paying attention, he/she could have avoided the situation entirely. So what goes into "paying attention?" How do you get better at it? My reason for starting this thread was to get some discussion going that might be useful to others who are less well versed in this stuff, and get people thinking about the non-mystical (cognitive, emotional, physiological, what-have-you) factors that go into what we loosely call situational awareness.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Vanya, I wasn't talking about you - sorry if I was misunderstood. In fact, I thought I was supporting your cogent posts and commenting on others.

Now, I'm sad - - going to lift weights now. Apologies.

Glenn

[Evan Thomas]

Aw, shucks, Glenn... it was that

Vanya -

that sorta gave me that impression... I guess I have my "prickly-skin" on this morning.

Sorry 'bout that.

Good lifting.

[BlueTrain]

I have to take issue with the sheep analogy again. You find all sorts of animals out there. Goats, mules, kittens, bulls, and so on. (What kind of animal are you?) And did you ever notice that sheep dogs either look like sheep or like wolves?

When I went places with my father he was always noticing animals along the road and I rarely saw them. Now that I do the driving, I see animals. It's simply that the driver is on the lookout. It also helps a lot if there are actually animals out there and there are many more where I live than where he lived. And it helps to know where to look sometimes.