Loss of fine motor skills a myth!

[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!

[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...sreactions.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.