There are two overarching themes I see often in the training realm, and for the most part they seem at opposition to one another. Due to the divergent nature of these two paths, I thought it would make for an interesting topic to discuss here.
The first is the basis that, under stress, when it's time to fight, we as humans revert back to using the part of our brain often called the "caveman brain". This is the part of the brain where gross motor skills are emphasized, decision making is grossly compartmentalized, and simpler tasks are prioritized over more complex ones.
This training path is often marked by--
The other path trains as professional athletes, pushing aside the caveman and training to a higher performance standard. This path emphasizes speed and efficiency over all else, and feels that the cavaman-like effects of stress can be minimized or even eliminated through high-level training.
This training path is often marked by--
"Cavemen" give reasoning for their methods like "it's reliable, even under stress" and "I don't have to train 10 different methods when 1 can work for the majority of circumstances". "Athletes" give reasoning like "this way is faster and more efficient-- and seconds count in a gunfight" and "why dumb down when you can rise up to a higher level of performance?"
A "caveman" might drill on 2 different knife techniques, and drill them until they are second nature. They would be simple to execute, and robust in nature. They might not be the best for some circumstances, but they would be acceptable in all circumstances. An "athlete" might drill on 10 different techniques pulled from many different disciplines. They might also practice several different combinations. They would know which technique is best used against different types of attacks.
A "caveman" might see a new technique and ask himself "Is this simpler than what I'm already doing?", "Could I do that repeatedly under stress?", "Could I do this whether I was holding a gun, a knife, or a stick?" An "athlete" might see this same new technique and ask himself "Is this faster than what I'm already doing?" "Is it a more efficient way of moving?"
So here are the questions I would pose to INGOers--
Are these themes truly opposed or is there middle ground?
Which should be more important when speaking of defensive techniques and tactics-- speed or reliability under stress?
Can a person "train out" the effects of stress? If so, what kind and how much training does it take?
Is "caveman brain" just an excuse to being lazy, inefficient, and not at the top of one's shooting potential?
Is training to the highest level foolhardy and not applicable under stress?
I look forward to hearing your responses. I'll add my own two cents sometime later.
The first is the basis that, under stress, when it's time to fight, we as humans revert back to using the part of our brain often called the "caveman brain". This is the part of the brain where gross motor skills are emphasized, decision making is grossly compartmentalized, and simpler tasks are prioritized over more complex ones.
This training path is often marked by--
- non-diagnostic malfunction clearance
- hand-over-slide charging instead of using slide stop
- low, hunched-over shooting position
- letting partial mags hit the deck on proactive reloads
- re-charging the slide on proactive reloads (thereby ejecting the chambered round)
- abandonment of "administrative" gun handling tasks
- acceptance of point- or target-focused shooting
- maintaining continuity across varying weapon platforms and techniques
- and more . . . .
The other path trains as professional athletes, pushing aside the caveman and training to a higher performance standard. This path emphasizes speed and efficiency over all else, and feels that the cavaman-like effects of stress can be minimized or even eliminated through high-level training.
This training path is often marked by--
- diagnostic malfunction clearance
- utilizing the slide stop instead of hand-over-slide charging
- relaxed, head-up shooting position
- retaining partial mags during proactive reloads
- separate "administrative" gun handling tasks
- disdain for anything that resembles point-shooting
- many specific techniques for each weapon platform and specific situation
- and more . . . .
"Cavemen" give reasoning for their methods like "it's reliable, even under stress" and "I don't have to train 10 different methods when 1 can work for the majority of circumstances". "Athletes" give reasoning like "this way is faster and more efficient-- and seconds count in a gunfight" and "why dumb down when you can rise up to a higher level of performance?"
A "caveman" might drill on 2 different knife techniques, and drill them until they are second nature. They would be simple to execute, and robust in nature. They might not be the best for some circumstances, but they would be acceptable in all circumstances. An "athlete" might drill on 10 different techniques pulled from many different disciplines. They might also practice several different combinations. They would know which technique is best used against different types of attacks.
A "caveman" might see a new technique and ask himself "Is this simpler than what I'm already doing?", "Could I do that repeatedly under stress?", "Could I do this whether I was holding a gun, a knife, or a stick?" An "athlete" might see this same new technique and ask himself "Is this faster than what I'm already doing?" "Is it a more efficient way of moving?"
So here are the questions I would pose to INGOers--
Are these themes truly opposed or is there middle ground?
Which should be more important when speaking of defensive techniques and tactics-- speed or reliability under stress?
Can a person "train out" the effects of stress? If so, what kind and how much training does it take?
Is "caveman brain" just an excuse to being lazy, inefficient, and not at the top of one's shooting potential?
Is training to the highest level foolhardy and not applicable under stress?
I look forward to hearing your responses. I'll add my own two cents sometime later.
Last edited: