Muscle Head (oops Memory) II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Banzai - ancedotal reports from gymnastic coaches means what? Of course, people learn motor responses. We are trying to clear up the loosness of the term muscle memory.
A coach can say you learn but not where the memory is.

Modern sports psychologists, trainers, etc.
read the up to date work on motor learning.
I doubt any would say that there is memory in muscles.
 
Glenn, with all due respect, I think you're beating a dead horse. I don't know for sure, but I don't think anyone here actually thinks there is any brain function resident within muscles. The real argument, as someone else said is over simple semantics. The term "muscle memory" is as good a term for this phenomenon as any. As I aluded in my brief post on this subject, constant repetition (practice) makes some actions become automatic and conscious thought is not needed to carry them out. In short, I think we probably all agree that the phenomenon exists to some degree, it seems to be the name of it that you are stuck on.
 
I remember when I worked for a drafting firm back in the 80's I would keep a pencil behind my right ear all day. After 4 years I moved on to a different field of work but to this day I still reach for that imaginary pencil every time I need to sign or write something.. I think that may be similar to what you guys are talking about.


Glock 23
Browning HP

[This message has been edited by FireForged (edited January 30, 2000).]
 
I'm obviously out of my depth with Thaddeus and Glenn on this subject, so I'll bow out with an observation/question. Glenn, when you bring up the failure of Olympians, aren't you comparing apples to oranges? We're discussing training to do things that are fairly achievable without stress--draw a weapon, get into a stance, fire two aimed shots--and how hard it is to do under stress.
For instance, I have no handgun training at all and, given time and no stress, I can do the above and expect to hit the 8-ring with both shots.

Olympic athletes, OTOH, are not only operating under stress but also trying to do something that's next to impossible under any conditions. That decathlete (either Dan or Dave, I forget :) ) was not just trying to pole vault, he was trying to do it high and well enough to make the cut at the Olympics. Those gymnasts on the bars are attempting actions I will simply NEVER be able to do, and stress is not the reason. They are simply very very difficult movements, and I don't know how you would separate the actual tiny mistakes from stress reactions.
 
Gwinnydapooh:
Since I've never been in a gunfight, thank God, I can only offer to this discussion experiences I've had as a motorcyclist with many miles logged. I've only had a handful of close calls in all those years, but in each--a drunk driver turning in front of me, a deer jumping out onto the road, an old guy pulling out in front of me from a side street--my training took over. These were stressful situations, yet my eyes, both hands and both feet all reacted to take me to a spot in the road that I had determined, within a split second, was safe. Afterward, I was angry of course, but also amazed that with so much happening so fast I was alive and sitting upright. Many of the posts on this topic have now given me a clue as to how
that happened. Thanks for the science class.

Dick
 
It has been established LONG ago in this thread that muscles do not have cognitive ability. Big friggin deal! No one is disagreeing on that, and I think the average person knows this. Ed was right on: this is another useless argument over semantics about the phrase "Muscle Memory". What a colossal waste of time!
Pluspinc thinks he is on to something big when it is absolutely nothing new. The infamous Colonel Jeff Copper and others have been teaching the "panic freeze up" for decades. It is layed out in the "Conditions" Cooper established. We know most of them, but the upper few are:
Condition Orange: Ready to react with training while consciously aware of situation,
Condition Red: Acting as trained and practiced, not necessarily with conscious thought,
Condition Black: Panic, loss of all trained ability.
"Condition Black" has been a term used to describe this for decades in the shooting community and it is nothing new. The idea is to ride in Condition Red when the time comes and hope to god you never cross over into Condition Black. This is the whole premise of training, to reduce the chance of panic.
We all train and practice mentally and physically with the goal that we don't fall into Condition Black. No one has said it can't happen, but we do know that the more we prepare mentally and physically, the less likely it will happen, otherwise none of us would train.


We all know people that have used their training to defend themselves or to save their lives whether it be riding a motorcycle or shooting a gun. Some people here would have us believe that we all turn to babbling piles of goo when stress hits. Sometimes, sure, everyone panics sometimes. Some people also panic a lot of the time, and other people have the "steely nerves" of James Bond and are never flustered. But most of us fall in the middle and are going to perform just like we practice when the time comes, and we see cases of this every day.

When it comes down to it, we are all wired a little differently anyway, so how can we generalize how all people will react? Look at a video on Real TV sometime and watch how crowds react and how differently people react to the same situation.
For instance, I was watching a plane crash at an air show once. The plane went down in a ball of fire about 100 yards from the crowd. Some people sat there and watched. Some people got up and ran away. Some people got up and ran toward the wreck to help. This all happened so suddenly that it was totally reflexive. People were running *toward* the wreck, which was a huge ball of fire, in a useless but instinctive attempt to save the pilot. Other people ran away from a wreck that was 100 yards away and posed no threat to them. Neither were very logical things to do, but everyone is wired a little differently and people react differently to the same situation.
Everyone reacts differently to these kinds of life endangering situations and everyone has a different threshold of what they consider stress and what send them into panic. So, how can we lump everyone into one group and say that when stress hits we are all going to fall apart and not be able to draw our gun, especially when real life tells us that as long as we practice enough, we probably WILL be able to react exactly like we train when the time comes.

To use Police Officers as an example of the best of us is ludicrous. These Officers are usually guys that barely qualify annually, and that is the only time all year that they even fire their gun! I know personally many cops like this, so I know for a fact there are may many of them out there, possibly even making up the greater majority of Police Officers as a whole. When they need to defend their life with a gun, of course some of them lose their abilities (abilites that they never had in the first place!). Let's look at the 2 million people a year that successfully defend themselves from criminal attack with a gun. Lets look at all the athletes that SUCCEED in performing intricate and nearly impossible feats under extreme stress, instead of looking at the few failures. Let's look at people in war time. Pluspinc would have us believe that both sides in a battle turn into piles of mush and they can't even flick the safety off on their gun or change a magazine. Obviously, people can and do perform under such stress because humans have proven to be very capable of performing in war. Yes, we can find a few instances of people failing to perform in war, and yes we can all tell crazy stories, but overall, a lot of people are getting shot, and that means a lot of people are pulling the trigger and hitting the target which means that a lot of people are doing what they were trained to do, even under the utmost of life threatening and fearful circumstances.

It is called a Red Herring argument, when you use one case of an Olympiad screwing up to prove that everyone fails under stress. Let's look at all the people that SUCCEED under stress, like Olympiads doing movements that are much more difficult than drawing a gun. Like Gwinny said, Olympiads are performing intricate feats that are nearly impossible under even the best conditions, and the fact is, they get %99 of it correct, even under extreme stress! This only serves to PROVE that people can perform very well under immense stress.
Focusing on a few failures is lacking to see the whole picture. Let's also look at the guys that train a lot and practice hard and see how well they shoot under stress? How about SWAT guys as whole? How about competitive shooters as a whole? How many of them can't draw their gun when they need to? And once again, we need to look at the whole picture, not a few Red Herring examples.

The fact is, I don't care what "science" says either way on this issue, when I know what real life is. Sometimes science takes a while to catch up and explain things that the average person knows from real life experience. I have been in battle, I have had my fair share of small arms fired at ME, trying to kill ME, and I have reacted in those situations according to my training and prevailed, so what kind of person, especially one that has never been there, going to tell me how I am supposed to react in that situation or how other people will react? We all know people, or ourselves, that have been in life threatening situations where we reacted with our training. I don't care if pseudo-scientists tell me that we can't react with our training when our lives are threatened. I have, others have, many people here have, so real life tells us that if we practice, we will.










[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited January 30, 2000).]
 
To our esteemed moderator, a dead horse is a fine thing to beat in the gun world. My question was the dead horse killed with a 1911 or Glock or shot with a 45 ACP or 9mm.
Many :)

I am amazed that some of you misinterpret what I said. The Olympian example was not stating that everyone fails under stress. Who said that? It wasn't me, Red Bull.

As far as this being a waste of time, I don't think this rather erudite discussion of stress response is a waste of time.

Perhaps your analysis of Condition Black is.
I'd like to see the reference that Black is
panic induced failure. Not the way I remember it.

see: http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/defensive.html and you might learn something.

Since you don't believe in science, where did those firearms come from? And since you don't believe in a reasoned analysis of the situation, who really cares what you think?

The issue is NOT that training always fails.
My buddy Darrell takes a strong position on that. My buddy JD takes a strong position the other way. My role is too explain why sometimes training fails.

Next time pay attention to the lecture.
If you are calling folks pseudo-scientists then you can ...

Now I apologize for being rude on such a nice forum as TFL.
 
Glenn - As it turns out, it was a dead goat. In fact it was a whole herd of herd of dead goats. According to the ME's report they weren't beaten, they were shot with FMJ's, JHP's, SP's, SWC's, etc. Calibers were .380, 9mm, .38 Spcl, .357 Mag., .40 S&W, 10mm, .41 Mag., .44 Mag., .45 ACP.

According to the Glock owners, the 1911's didn't even touch them. And according to the 1911 owners, the Glocks all blew up in the experiment. :) :D
 
While I agree with most all of Red Bull's posting, he is a bit mistaken on Cooper's color codes. The proper definitions are...

WHITE - Relaxed, unaware.

YELLOW - Generally aware of one's surroundings. One's awareness is non-specific, in that one is not focused on any one person or thing.

ORANGE - Specific alert. Something has one's attention. It could be someone coming into the bank wearing an overcoat in hot weather, et cetera.

RED - This is one's fighting state. In "red", one is ready to fight if one's mental trigger is tripped. That mental trigger will differ from person to person and situation to situation. It may be the suspect producing a weapon, it may be (in a military action) seeing the opposition's uniform, and so forth.

Some other instructors (specifically NOT Cooper) have added "condition black". I've heard it most often explained as describing that the fight is on. However, the fight is ON in "red". The fact that one might be in "red" but not be shooting just means that one's mental criteria for pressing the trigger has not yet been met. If it pleases one to add a condition "black", then it probably hurts nothing, but it should not be attributed to Cooper.

The notion of a "color code" for panicking or having one's head up one's orifice, is often jokingly referred to as "condition BROWN".

At any rate, the above are the proper definitions of the states of awareness that Jeff Cooper has helped us communicate and cultivate through the vehicle of a "color code". Some ignorant critics like to jeer and note that one ought not be thinking of "colors" during a fight. This is just evidence that they don't understand the concept. The color code is designed to help the user develop the proper and appropriate levels of awareness, so that he doesn't have to think about the colors...he simply cycles through the appropriate levels of awareness as he goes about his business once the color codes have helped him make those levels second nature.

Rosco


[This message has been edited by Rosco Benson (edited January 31, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Rosco Benson (edited January 31, 2000).]
 
When we talk of those that succeed under stess..that is easy. Genetics mostly. But self-defense is FRIGHT. That is not stress.
Nobody in the Olympics think they will die or have to kill someone to win.
Failure to perform is the dirty little bastard child of the gun training community. As for those that live, many claim it is luck, a few claim training, but videos show otherwise in most cases when they are used.
Training works BEFORE the shooting. Once the process ot shoot is started we resort to genetics and some are better prepared than others.
Let's be REEEEEEEEL honest boys and girls. Some got it and some don't. I think we all know some folks that shouldn't own guns (but they have the RIGHT) and there are many folks we'd love to have with us if the chips were down and some would be a hazard to us. When we think of those types we don't take into account their training very much, but we look at our "trust" in them which is almost instinctive.
I've met and worked with officers with a MINIMUM of training and would go to war with em at my side. Other so calledk "experts" I wouldn't want with me to haul out the garbage. Hardly an exacting science.

------------------
Specialists in the use and training of lethal force.
 
Interesting, Rosco. I was taught in a rather prominent school by a very reknown instructor that Condition Black was panic. As we can see, the white/yellow/orange/red conditions are pretty well laid out but people interpret Black how they wish. My point still stands that there are instructors out there that have been teaching panic and loss of all abilities, and I think most of us know it can happen. This is not a revelationary topic.

It is too bad that some people have it and some people don't. It looks like bad guys "have it" more than we wish, but I still refuse to believe one statistic to tell me that most other people do not.

Just look at the newspaper at how many people every day succeed in defending themselves. If you read the newspapers around the US, every few days there is a story of someone successfully defending themselves iwth a gun.
Why, just yesterday a woman was walking down the road and a bad guy jumped out and pointed a gun at her face and demanded money. According to people here, she should have crapped her pants and her knees should have failed and she should have not been able to respond. But the real story is that she reached as if going for a wallet and instead pulled out a .40 caliber handgun and plugged the guy once in the chest and he was dead when he hit the ground.
The day before that in the newspaper, a guy was in his yard when his neighbor approached him. Both of them had concealed guns. A heated argument ensued, one guy reached for a gun, the older survivor reached for his in response, drew a concealed gun (supposedly really tough to do) and plugged the other guy once in the chest, killing him.
Let's just look at how successful these people are at drawing their gun and firing it accuratly while facing life threatening danger.
A few weeks ago we remember the good Doctor in Alamo California who had two bad guys kick down his door with guns and they came in punching, kicking and shooting. The doctor who was a competetive shooter responded by charging into the scene with nothing more than a .38 Special revolver. The doctor succeed in shooting one bad guy to death, and critically wounding the other, even though the Doctor was severely outgunned and out numbered and ambushed. They killed him by shooting him in the back as he ran away to reload.
The week before that in the newspaper a man came home to find an intruder in his home. The good guy had a gun that he brought in from the car, and when he came in to find his home invaded, he shot and killed the intruder.
These are just a few stories out of the newspaper off the top of my head. I could go on and on and on with more examples. There is a new story in the paper almost every day if you scan American newspapers. So, if everyone supposedly freezes up and can't shoot to defend themselves, then how come every day in the newspapaper there is a story of an average person doing just that?!

I just don't buy the hype here. We all know that people can and do freeze but we also see people every day who succeed in defending themselves with guns while facing life threatening danger and fear.
 
This is an excellent thread. Thanks to everyone for the responses!

Pluspinc-
I see what you are saying. But, you have not given us an alternative yet. If our training might fail, then what do you offer as an alternative?
It has been well established on this forum and others that under the 'scientific method' it is far to easy to bash on other 'experts' and rip apart their work, but it is not enough to discredit other people, you have to come up with a solution.
With all due respect and humility, I would just like to know what you propose as a solution? What are we supposed to do about this? Are we to accept fate and just hope that we 'have it' when the time comes, or are there any pro-active measures we can take to insure that we respond when needed? If you think training is useless, then why do you teach? What do you teach your students to do as your solution to this dilemma? Please, what is your solution?


Thanks!
 
The solution is MASTERING the BASICS and NOT to have a shooting. Wish I could go into detail here, but shooting is the least important issue in self-defense. Once you are in that position where fright hits you are in deep doo-doo an survival is very limited.
But if you can keep yourself on the other side and just deal with fear you can do some things but they are limited.
I just read today of a case of an officer shot and had 26 seconds to shoot back as an offender reloaded. He didn't even try. Again, we resort to our training? Our training says to do that? I don't dance in the blood of the dead, but there is a lesson there that something is going very wrong in the REAL world. Do we just keeping ignoring it or coming up with excuses? Think about it. The body count mounts up.
As for our defending ourselves ...it isn't very common as some have said.
Minn. is a good sounding board. Last year 36,000 home burglaries. About 50% of homes have guns, so we can say 20,000 armed homes were broken into. Of those burglaries 13% will of OCCUPIED homes. So about 3,000 homes each year are broken into while the gun owners are home. Last year we had ONE shooting of an intruder in the state and that was in December.
California and Texas lead in the number of self-defense shootings but the vast majority are cases involving a victim KNOWN to the shooter. Over 250 MILLION people the number of shootings is estimated at about 1500-2500 per year, but total stranger to stranger shootings are rare.
In Minnesota 33 females were killed last year, 3 by strangers.
When some of the stats are compiled they are done at the time of the shooting in many cases but that information almost always changes after investigation but not tabulated.
Even being optimistic, the odds are over whelming that if you shoot someone it will be someone known to you. Just because you know them doesn't mean you can't protect yourself from them.
The jerk neighbor down the block is more of a threat than a burglar. We just don't like to look at the facts and have created our own set of guidelines for what will happen.
To defend ourselves we have to master the basics ....21 feet...in low light or darkness. If you get any training and they don't do 85% of their shooting in the dark or low light, find someplace else. That includes the most basic courses. I don't see how we can train without it but most will. Also laws are vital. You don't want to be the best shot in prison.

------------------
Specialists in the use and training of lethal force.
 
Like I said, there is a story like this almost every day in a U.S. newspaper. This is at least one of today's stories.
It is a good thing this woman did NOT train too much, or she might have frozen up with fear and not been able to even get her gun or shoot straight. ;)


Woman kills rape suspect in her home By Peter Ortiz
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 2, 2000

(edited for length)

When a man broke into her Apache Junction home early Tuesday and announced, "I'm going to kill everyone," Bricie Tribble didn't hesitate.
She reached for the handgun on her kitchen counter and shot the man dead.
Only later did she [find out] that he was believed to have raped and shot a woman just an hour earlier.

The man's death ended a night of terror that began in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Chandler at about 11 p.m. Monday when the man pedaled his bike up to a 33-year-old woman and asked for the time. Police said the man pushed the woman into her sport utility vehicle and forced her at gunpoint to drive to a desert road in northeast Mesa, where he sexually assaulted her and shot her in the cheek, right arm and chest.
The attacker drove off in the woman's vehicle, but she managed to make it to a nearby house and place a 911 call. "The guy raped me and then he took off in my truck," the terrified woman told the operator. "I guess he left figuring I was dead. I am not dead."

A little after midnight, the man, in his 20s, was inside Tribble's Apache Junction home going through the personal belongings of the sexual-assault victim, which he had brought into the house, police said.

Tribble, 28, grabbed her loaded handgun and fired several times [killing the home invader].

Tribble's husband, Jeff, and 9-year-old nephew were also in the home but were not harmed.
The dead man's name was being being withheld by the Chandler police pending further investigation.
 
Well that is ONE case. When you look at our population it is real real real rare a civilian is involved in a shooting. ONE case does not a trend make.
13% of home burglaries are of occupied homes and about 50% of homes have guns. Do the math of the millions of home burglaries each year and how many shootings we DON'T have.
 
Research Design, Research Design, Research Design ! YAY!

Sorry I teach this stuff. In a zillion fields there are courses in research design and statistics. Many times the gun world freaks out over the one vivid case.

One case of a guy who misses or a guy who hits doesn't not support either side. No big lectures from me though. I once explained multiple regression on a tactics list.

That went over big!
 
I didn't just list one case, I just listed like 5 or 6 in the last month, and I don't even keep track of ALL of them! I am very lax at searching out stories of real shootings, and I see one at least once every few days.

I said that if you watch the papers, you will see a story like this in a US news paper almost every day, or at least a few times a week of citizens doing just this. I just happened to find this one the day after I said that, so I thought I would list it. I am sure I could find another story like this today or tomorrow in another US paper.

If you don't want to believe it, then fine, but I think this horse has been beat to death and with that I am signing out of this thread.
 
Pluspinc wrote:
"13% of home burglaries are of occupied homes and about 50% of homes have guns. Do the math of the millions of home burglaries each year and how many shootings we DON'T have."

You have built yourself a glaring straw man argument here, Darrel.

Your (unverified) statistics claim that around %6.5 of burglaries are in homes of gun owners (hopefully you can already see the fallacy developing here, because it is huge).

Your argument is that we don't see enough bad guys getting shot, so therefore this above statistic proves your argument that in times of fear we will not be able to act, even with practice and training.

Your statistic relies on a few very large variables when applied to your argument:

1) The gun owner has to be the one that is home. Just because someone in the home owns a gun does not mean the gun owner is home. The husband may own a gun, but his wife or kids or friends etc are the ones that are there when the burglary happens.
If the person that owns the gun or is trained to use it, or even knows where it is, is not home, then the gun being in the home is a moot point to your argument.

2) The gun has to be appropriated to home defense. In other words: many many gun owners in america simply own a hunting rifle or an antique gun that was given to them by their father etc.
A scoped hunting rifle in the back of the closet is no use when suddenly a bad guy is in your living room. This eliminates many of your gun owners right here.

3) The gun has to be ready for home defense. The gun cannot be unloaded and/or locked up in any way. The gun cannot be used in such defense if it is unloaded or stored "safely" in traditional means. This would elminate another huge portion of your gunowners in your statistic.

4) According to DOJ statistics, if the gun is not within 15 feet of you when you need it, then you will not be able to get to it in time, on average. This means that the gun has to be not only ready to go, but within reach. How many people have a gun within reach of them at every minute when they are home? This also eliminates a huge protion of your remaining study group.

5) Of the very small study group that remains, how many of those people are trained and practiced in using that gun, which is what your argument is all about.

This means that in order for your statistical argument to hold water, it would at least have to account for these variables. The gun would have to be a defensive gun or assigned to such task, it would have to be loaded and ready to be used, and the gun would have to be within reach of the owner. Suddenly you are left with a very small sample, and it would explain why so few people use guns effectively to defend their homes.
Remember your argument. Your argument is that if a trained and practiced person has a gun on them and that person is in fear, they will not be able to draw their gun and shoot it accuratly enough to save their life. They will forget their training, forget their gun and it will be useless. That is your argument throughout this thread and this thread is all about TRAINED and PRACTICED people.
So, not only does the gun have to be a gun assigned to defense, and it has to be loaded, and it has to be within 15 feet of the person or actually ON the person, but also the gun owner has to be home (not his wife for instance) and the gun owner has to be trained, and THEN, your statistics could be of use in proving whether or not such a person could react and use his gun to save his life.
Regarding all these variables, %6.5 of burgleries is a HUGE overestimation of the kind of instances you are looking for. After accounting for these variables, your study group is very very small and that is why your outcome is very very small.

Without accounting for these variables, your statistical analyisis as applied to your argument is completely invalid. I submit that if you did account for these above variables, and you just looked at well-trained gun owners who have their gun on them when someone breaks into their home, and see how successful they were at using said gun, then you would get some very high numbers.

You have built a straw man argument, developing statistcs that do not at all refflect the study group, and then you have torn down those accounts and used your false statistic to "prove" that an armed person could not defend himself. In other words, your statistcs don't prove anything in regards to your argument. Hence, a straw man argument. Hence, it is completely invalid to the issue at hand and you have succeeding only in muddying the water to avoid the argument you are failing to establish.






[This message has been edited by DerGlockenpooper (edited February 04, 2000).]
 
Red Bull - the horse lives.

Listen, guy - you post positive stories.
I can post stories of people and cops screwing up. You have to compare rates to get an overall picture.

Also, the argument is why some folks screw up and not that you will always screw up.
 
DerGlockenPooper, did you take Research Design? How dare you use such analyses in this discussion?

Damn, I'm kicking my horse and he won't move.

Horses - my kid goes to Switzerland to visit her boyfriend. He takes her out for a meal.
Horse fondue. Thinly sliced raw horse and a bubbling pot of broth. Roll the horse, skewer it and cook in the broth. Yummy, she says.
They also have horse bacon.

Now, these are the Swiss. He is one of those guys with a Sig 550. They know how to really use a dead horse.

HiYo - Silver away!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top