Ed,
An interesting hypothesis, and believable. But....do you have data (not anecdotal evidence) to support it?
Fred
Questions about the shot process
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Steve Swartz
Once again, I must violently agree with Ed here!
The subconscious component of the shot release does indeed rely on your brain's ability to *predict* where the sights will be X milliseconds ahead of time.
There are both empirical and logical proofs for this hypothesis.
Ed is right- IF the shot release were totally random, we would see a uniform distribution (in both x and Y; or polar coordinates if you prefer) of shot releases within the wobble area. I have one quibble however- your wobble is not uniformly distributed; so even if the premise were true (uniformly randomly distributed releases) we would still see some "clustering" of shots toward the centroid of hold as we tend to wobble more over the middle of the target than we do around the edges. So- what happens if we measure the distribution of the "wobble dots" and compare that to the distribution of the "hole in paper dots?" We find there is a measurable contribution from "some outside process" that contributes to tightness of shot groupings that is unaccounted for by a uniform random process. In other words, we can see wobble zone percentages of something like 10:25% 9:40% 8:25% 7:10% AND shot distributions of 10:50% 9:45% 8:5% 7:0%. So what is happening? Obviously, we are NOT releasing shots uniformly distributed over our wobble. Heck, if all we do is not release those 7s and 8s we are blowing the "uniformly distributed" explanation out of the water. We are choosing (at some level) to release shots closer to the middle than the edges.
Examining system traces- do we see an equal number of shots released when the tracing is moving away from the center or toward the center? For a "conscious" shooter, the answer may be yes. For a "subconscious" (unconscious?) shooter you will see the vast majority of releases occur- and the terminal 400 ms of trace- will be trending toward the center, not away. *Something* is recognizing the positive trend of muzzle travel and responding to it for the subconscious shooters. The conscious shooters are recognizing a good aim point, then initiating release . . . Ooops! Too late!
There are more "propositions" to demonstrate the validity of the "subconscious-lead time" theory . . . but I'm long winded as usual and running late so someone else feel free to jump in here!
Fred- just do some "thought experiments" (gedunken) in your own mind. Visualize the process of releasing a shot with all of the elements in play . . . wobbly hold, shaky alignment, delay time in releasing the shot . . . and I think you will come to realize it really can't be happening any other way.
But yes you can collect the data (desing an experiment) and demonstrate that it does happen the way Ed (and I) are claiming.
Steve
The subconscious component of the shot release does indeed rely on your brain's ability to *predict* where the sights will be X milliseconds ahead of time.
There are both empirical and logical proofs for this hypothesis.
Ed is right- IF the shot release were totally random, we would see a uniform distribution (in both x and Y; or polar coordinates if you prefer) of shot releases within the wobble area. I have one quibble however- your wobble is not uniformly distributed; so even if the premise were true (uniformly randomly distributed releases) we would still see some "clustering" of shots toward the centroid of hold as we tend to wobble more over the middle of the target than we do around the edges. So- what happens if we measure the distribution of the "wobble dots" and compare that to the distribution of the "hole in paper dots?" We find there is a measurable contribution from "some outside process" that contributes to tightness of shot groupings that is unaccounted for by a uniform random process. In other words, we can see wobble zone percentages of something like 10:25% 9:40% 8:25% 7:10% AND shot distributions of 10:50% 9:45% 8:5% 7:0%. So what is happening? Obviously, we are NOT releasing shots uniformly distributed over our wobble. Heck, if all we do is not release those 7s and 8s we are blowing the "uniformly distributed" explanation out of the water. We are choosing (at some level) to release shots closer to the middle than the edges.
Examining system traces- do we see an equal number of shots released when the tracing is moving away from the center or toward the center? For a "conscious" shooter, the answer may be yes. For a "subconscious" (unconscious?) shooter you will see the vast majority of releases occur- and the terminal 400 ms of trace- will be trending toward the center, not away. *Something* is recognizing the positive trend of muzzle travel and responding to it for the subconscious shooters. The conscious shooters are recognizing a good aim point, then initiating release . . . Ooops! Too late!
There are more "propositions" to demonstrate the validity of the "subconscious-lead time" theory . . . but I'm long winded as usual and running late so someone else feel free to jump in here!
Fred- just do some "thought experiments" (gedunken) in your own mind. Visualize the process of releasing a shot with all of the elements in play . . . wobbly hold, shaky alignment, delay time in releasing the shot . . . and I think you will come to realize it really can't be happening any other way.
But yes you can collect the data (desing an experiment) and demonstrate that it does happen the way Ed (and I) are claiming.
Steve
-
Ed Hall
Hi Fred,
It's all just my current understanding of the process based on all the personal observations I've made of the physical and metaphysical realms and all the interrelated intricacies. I've listened to and read from many shooters (and other athletes and coaches) over the years, noting many parallels, and formed the basis of my hypothesis, and then modified it as I looked upon it from newer vantage points along my own journey.
The neat thing about the human experience is that we can prove or disprove anything we want, to personal self, by following our individual belief structure, and only by accepting the possibily of an alternate theory, can we begin to accpet that theory as fact. My theories of studying what works, instead of all the errors you can make, seems valid only for those who believe in it, (even if others who don't believe it use the same factors to achieve objectives for most of their studies). Everyone else has to work hard at studying all the errors and correcting them - a tried and true method for some, but a longer approach, not (or rarely) visited by some others.
The only emperical data I can offer is the physical world around us with all the parallels of nature and the personal observations of oneself. I can suggest similarities in coincidence of events as circumstantial evidence of nature working the same way in many dimensions, but I can't provide you concrete data that would prove anything beyond any belief already held.
The personal understanding for oneself is gained only by the study of data that can be assimilated at any point in their time line, and is based on their belief structure to date. All data can be used to prove or disprove the same thing, based on how it is presented and what is being searched for.
I'm sorry, I can't provide what you've asked. I guess it will be a matter of belief. But, "believable" is a start...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://www.geocities.com/ed_ka2fwj/
It's all just my current understanding of the process based on all the personal observations I've made of the physical and metaphysical realms and all the interrelated intricacies. I've listened to and read from many shooters (and other athletes and coaches) over the years, noting many parallels, and formed the basis of my hypothesis, and then modified it as I looked upon it from newer vantage points along my own journey.
The neat thing about the human experience is that we can prove or disprove anything we want, to personal self, by following our individual belief structure, and only by accepting the possibily of an alternate theory, can we begin to accpet that theory as fact. My theories of studying what works, instead of all the errors you can make, seems valid only for those who believe in it, (even if others who don't believe it use the same factors to achieve objectives for most of their studies). Everyone else has to work hard at studying all the errors and correcting them - a tried and true method for some, but a longer approach, not (or rarely) visited by some others.
The only emperical data I can offer is the physical world around us with all the parallels of nature and the personal observations of oneself. I can suggest similarities in coincidence of events as circumstantial evidence of nature working the same way in many dimensions, but I can't provide you concrete data that would prove anything beyond any belief already held.
The personal understanding for oneself is gained only by the study of data that can be assimilated at any point in their time line, and is based on their belief structure to date. All data can be used to prove or disprove the same thing, based on how it is presented and what is being searched for.
I'm sorry, I can't provide what you've asked. I guess it will be a matter of belief. But, "believable" is a start...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://www.geocities.com/ed_ka2fwj/
-
Steve Swartz
Agree with Ed- however- "It works for me" is not a high level of proof.
What you need to do is apply something called "the scientific method" to the question at hand:
1) Accurately observe and measure the phenomena in the real world
2) Propose hypotheses to explain the observations
3) Extrapolate all "effects" of what would happen if each hypothesis were true
4) Design and conduct experiments to *rule out* alternative explanations
5) What you are left with (after ruling out all other alternatives) must be "true" at least to hte limits of what you can measure
O.K., so we have these observed phenomena about what people see and think about as they shoot. Some patterns are associated with fairly large degrees of variance in performance; others are associated with much smaller errors.
We also have some literature that captures much of these observed phenomena. We also have some literature (Yur'Yev for a notable example) that appears to apply some degree of actual scholarship to the issues.
Finally, we have instrumentation that is now readily available "to the masses" in the form of Rika, Scatt, Noptel etc. that provides additional visibility into the process.
What has been observed by many independent observers over many different trials and situations is that certain things tend to be associated with high performance shooting:
- Focusing on front sight
- Concentrating on sight alignment
- Subconscious release of the shot
- Smooth uninterrupted trigger control
- Relaxation
- Intensity of mental concentration
- Some "alpha state" with no conscious thought or the overlay of a "white noise" in the centers of the brain associated with conscious thought
Now, what is truly problematic is "getting inside" those last critical 200-350 milliseconds of what happens during the subconscious release of the shot itself.
It would appear intuitively obvious- perhaps not- that the signal to release the shot musjt be commanded *before* conditions are perfect, as the human lock time and mechanical lock time adds delay to the pellet exiting the muzzle.
It has also been observed that even the best shooters cannot hold the muzzle completely still during the total lock time.
Add the other observations in my previous email, and the dominant explanation (dominanat theory) is the "subconscious lead time" explanation.
Alternative theories (including uniformly random shot release) do not explain all of the observed phenomena as well as the subconscious lead time theory does. Also, there are additional observations that would simply not be true if the alternative theories were true.
Anyhow, this all makes a lot more sense if we had some paper and pecils and could sketch it out with bubbles and arrows connecting what we observe in nature to the purported causes. It becomes more clear that the subconscious lead time theory is the only theory that makes sense logically, consistent with the observable facts.
Steve Swartz
What you need to do is apply something called "the scientific method" to the question at hand:
1) Accurately observe and measure the phenomena in the real world
2) Propose hypotheses to explain the observations
3) Extrapolate all "effects" of what would happen if each hypothesis were true
4) Design and conduct experiments to *rule out* alternative explanations
5) What you are left with (after ruling out all other alternatives) must be "true" at least to hte limits of what you can measure
O.K., so we have these observed phenomena about what people see and think about as they shoot. Some patterns are associated with fairly large degrees of variance in performance; others are associated with much smaller errors.
We also have some literature that captures much of these observed phenomena. We also have some literature (Yur'Yev for a notable example) that appears to apply some degree of actual scholarship to the issues.
Finally, we have instrumentation that is now readily available "to the masses" in the form of Rika, Scatt, Noptel etc. that provides additional visibility into the process.
What has been observed by many independent observers over many different trials and situations is that certain things tend to be associated with high performance shooting:
- Focusing on front sight
- Concentrating on sight alignment
- Subconscious release of the shot
- Smooth uninterrupted trigger control
- Relaxation
- Intensity of mental concentration
- Some "alpha state" with no conscious thought or the overlay of a "white noise" in the centers of the brain associated with conscious thought
Now, what is truly problematic is "getting inside" those last critical 200-350 milliseconds of what happens during the subconscious release of the shot itself.
It would appear intuitively obvious- perhaps not- that the signal to release the shot musjt be commanded *before* conditions are perfect, as the human lock time and mechanical lock time adds delay to the pellet exiting the muzzle.
It has also been observed that even the best shooters cannot hold the muzzle completely still during the total lock time.
Add the other observations in my previous email, and the dominant explanation (dominanat theory) is the "subconscious lead time" explanation.
Alternative theories (including uniformly random shot release) do not explain all of the observed phenomena as well as the subconscious lead time theory does. Also, there are additional observations that would simply not be true if the alternative theories were true.
Anyhow, this all makes a lot more sense if we had some paper and pecils and could sketch it out with bubbles and arrows connecting what we observe in nature to the purported causes. It becomes more clear that the subconscious lead time theory is the only theory that makes sense logically, consistent with the observable facts.
Steve Swartz
-
Ed Hall
Hmmm...
The data is available, as Steve has pointed out (Thanks Steve). It is in the form of all the writings and studies done by many enthusiasts. But who's to decide whether these individuals have provided us with empirical or anecdotal evidence? Or which are which?
Although my understanding of the shot process is based on years of study of all the material presented to me, I would not be able to say here's the proof and hand over a set of data. The best I can do is to offer material to study for oneself and then allow the choice to believe or not, whether my understanding is valid.
So, yes I can provide sources for various material, but who is to decide where data become anecdotal evidence or changes into solidly backed theory?
Maybe a defense mechanism I'm not recognizing has kicked in. Anyway, however my responses are taken, so be it. I'll hold (and evolve) my own understanding of the shooting process as I travel my path, and continue to suggest direction for study as I feel so compelled.
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://www.geocities.com/ed_ka2fwj/
Hadn't meant to sound that way! At least I don't think so. I'll try again... Perhaps I'm reading too far into the actual question - wouldn't be the first time.<smile>Agree with Ed- however- "It works for me" is not a high level of proof.
The data is available, as Steve has pointed out (Thanks Steve). It is in the form of all the writings and studies done by many enthusiasts. But who's to decide whether these individuals have provided us with empirical or anecdotal evidence? Or which are which?
Although my understanding of the shot process is based on years of study of all the material presented to me, I would not be able to say here's the proof and hand over a set of data. The best I can do is to offer material to study for oneself and then allow the choice to believe or not, whether my understanding is valid.
So, yes I can provide sources for various material, but who is to decide where data become anecdotal evidence or changes into solidly backed theory?
Maybe a defense mechanism I'm not recognizing has kicked in. Anyway, however my responses are taken, so be it. I'll hold (and evolve) my own understanding of the shooting process as I travel my path, and continue to suggest direction for study as I feel so compelled.
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://www.geocities.com/ed_ka2fwj/
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
For which I thank you, and Steve. I will use 'subconscious lead time' as a working hypothesis as I make my way down my road. I need to think some more about how the subconscious learns....Ed Hall wrote: ... and continue to suggest direction for study as I feel so compelled.
FWIW, I was hoping to entice a proponent of some other theory out of the sidelines and stimulate a debate. No takers?
Be well,
Fred
For you knowledge management guru's out there is another way to look at the shot process and the concious and sub-concious, tt is to treat them as explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.
Explicit knowledge is when we learn something new, we concentrate on the process in detail to exhibit and practice what we want to learn - concious thought
Tacit knowledge is when we know something so well we can just do it with out concious thought - subconcious.
As an example of tacit knowledge, how do you know how to walk, or how can you describe to someone that has never walked the process of walking. It is an incredibly detailed process to break down, it is not as simple as saying put one foot in front of the other., how do you know how to stand up, think of a baby learning to crawl or walk, it goes through a number of experimental stages and muscle development stages before it can progress to the real thing. Your shot process is the same, you learn it by trying various things, tools from the shooting box if you like, until your brain can do it subconciously and your physical body has the ability to do what the subconcious is asking.
For me the shooting process is the same, spending time breaking down the process and learning each phase of it - explicit knowledge - until we can do that part of the process without concious thought - tacit knowledge - and we are then able to combine all the little parts into the shot process.
My goal is to make as much of the shot process tacit, so that it is done by the sub-concious by default. The trick is to break down the process enough in the explicit stage and to have a workable process for you . Then do the 10,000 repititions of the process, not 10,000 shots (sorry Steve but I am sure you will agree) until it becomes tacit or can be done by your sub-concious.
Then you can examine your process and if necessary fine tune or reprogram parts of your process by actively rehearsing them until the modified part of the process becomes tacit or a part of your subconcious process.
Mikey
Explicit knowledge is when we learn something new, we concentrate on the process in detail to exhibit and practice what we want to learn - concious thought
Tacit knowledge is when we know something so well we can just do it with out concious thought - subconcious.
As an example of tacit knowledge, how do you know how to walk, or how can you describe to someone that has never walked the process of walking. It is an incredibly detailed process to break down, it is not as simple as saying put one foot in front of the other., how do you know how to stand up, think of a baby learning to crawl or walk, it goes through a number of experimental stages and muscle development stages before it can progress to the real thing. Your shot process is the same, you learn it by trying various things, tools from the shooting box if you like, until your brain can do it subconciously and your physical body has the ability to do what the subconcious is asking.
For me the shooting process is the same, spending time breaking down the process and learning each phase of it - explicit knowledge - until we can do that part of the process without concious thought - tacit knowledge - and we are then able to combine all the little parts into the shot process.
My goal is to make as much of the shot process tacit, so that it is done by the sub-concious by default. The trick is to break down the process enough in the explicit stage and to have a workable process for you . Then do the 10,000 repititions of the process, not 10,000 shots (sorry Steve but I am sure you will agree) until it becomes tacit or can be done by your sub-concious.
Then you can examine your process and if necessary fine tune or reprogram parts of your process by actively rehearsing them until the modified part of the process becomes tacit or a part of your subconcious process.
Mikey
I'm not sure there is any advantage to be gained by performing the whole shot process in the subconcious. In fact I would say that would be counter productive. The conscious brain needs something to do and that I would suggest is best served by conducting the initial aspects of the shot process, up until lowering onto the target for example. From then on the subconscious can kick in and control the trigger release assuming the predetermined sighting factors are met - or of course abort.
Rob.
Rob.
-
Steve Swartz
Yes, Absolutely!
The conscious mind must have *something* to focus on . . . if not, it will introduce distractions and interrupt your flow.
I kicked this around a bit and decided (chose) to give hte conscious mind the task of concentrating on maintaining perfect sight alignment.
Seems to be a more useful task than having it concentrate on, say, the day's news!
Steve Swartz
The conscious mind must have *something* to focus on . . . if not, it will introduce distractions and interrupt your flow.
I kicked this around a bit and decided (chose) to give hte conscious mind the task of concentrating on maintaining perfect sight alignment.
Seems to be a more useful task than having it concentrate on, say, the day's news!
Steve Swartz
-
Fred
conscious mind
Steve Swartz wrote: I kicked this around a bit and decided (chose) to give hte conscious mind the task of concentrating on maintaining perfect sight alignment.
Steve Swartz
Steve,
Does "maintaining" mean that you are consciously correcting the alignment throughout the triggering process? If so, I don't see how this fits with the concept of subconscious anticipation you and Ed Hall have described.
FredB
-
Mike Douglass
sight alignment
Fred,
You do not conciously maintain sight alignment. Proper training, focusing on grip and muscle control, should make it so the sights align by themselves and stay that way. However, if the sight alignment strays and you pick up on this then you have the option of using fine motor skills to correct it, or put the gun down and try again. I suggest the latter.
It's hard to conciously focus on the front sight and sight alignment at the same time.
Mike Douglass
You do not conciously maintain sight alignment. Proper training, focusing on grip and muscle control, should make it so the sights align by themselves and stay that way. However, if the sight alignment strays and you pick up on this then you have the option of using fine motor skills to correct it, or put the gun down and try again. I suggest the latter.
It's hard to conciously focus on the front sight and sight alignment at the same time.
Mike Douglass
-
Ed Hall
Exactly! The conscious act is the focus on the front sight. This allows the "observance" by the subconscious of the entire scene and how it is developing. The "fine motor skills" are being directed by the subconscious (unless the conscious forces its way in, in which case, the subconscious may give up). You must have the confidence to give the operation to the subconscious, but how do you know if the subconscious doesn't like what it sees?It's hard to conciously focus on the front sight and sight alignment at the same time.
By some break in the conscious effort. Stray thoughts, doubts or a failure to experience a shot. Once the conscious "notices" the shot didn't happen, it's time to abort. The "notice" is the subconscious trying to contact the conscious. The communication can seem subtle, but through training it can become much more apparent when the subconscious wants to give control back.
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://www.geocities.com/ed_ka2fwj/
Use the concious mind to trigger the subconcious.
Treat it like a computer where you use the mouse to start a computer application like Word and then the computer does all of the work before you give it another command.
So for the shot process use the concious mind to go through the triggers/prompts for the shot process and allow the subconcious to complete the detail.
You can either treat it as a prompt or sometimes I will mentally handover a part of the shot process from concious to subconcious.
Mikey
Treat it like a computer where you use the mouse to start a computer application like Word and then the computer does all of the work before you give it another command.
So for the shot process use the concious mind to go through the triggers/prompts for the shot process and allow the subconcious to complete the detail.
You can either treat it as a prompt or sometimes I will mentally handover a part of the shot process from concious to subconcious.
Mikey