Random Thoughts On Blog Comments And Lack Thereof; and The Difference Between A Course Of Fire and a Neural-Based Training Embedded In Firearms Use

by | Mar 30, 2015

Seems there are some misconceptions about the neural-based shooting exercise I posted. Instead of answering e-mails individually I’ll just comment here. Your e-mails and names aren’t posted publicly when you comment here unless you choose to. Don’t be bashful about posting questions and comments. Most of the e-mail questions I get are questions other people might be interested in too. It saves me time and energy to reply once on the blog instead of multiple times via e-mail.

What I posted is not intended as a course of fire for competition, qualification or even a “practice” routine for developing a skill set (though it can be used as such, as long as we don’t lose track of what it was developed for).

It’s intended to take a number of practitioners with a common skill set (though they are at varying levels of competency with that skill) and take their BRAINS (i.e. neurological, cognitive, physiological including motor processes) through a series of activities (framed in shooting as that’s the desired end-state for the skill) intended to REWIRE the neural processes that support the skill of fluidly shifting handgun from hand to hand and engaging targets accurately and quickly while under stress.

1) I’ve been writing about this stuff since the 90s. There’s over 300,000+ words on various internet forums and that’s not even beginning to count all that’s on this blog. Go read if you want more detail.

2) There’s a big difference between writing (or talking) about changing brain-based processes, and actually doing it. My focus is on doing it. I design a process, you do it, you get the change and with shooting you can measure it: speed and accuracy are quantifiable. That’s why 25 years ago I started my research within the context of shooting. The outcome of that 100 round neural-based training process can be measured subjectively (the experience of fluidity or ease) as well as objectively (accuracy and speed). So just do it. It either works for you or it doesn’t. 100% of the people who do it get some measure of improvement. If I stick your head in a scanner or wire you up I can show you the brain changes. Since that’s not an option for you use the metrics identified above. If it works for you, keep it. If it doesn’t, throw it away.

3) On neural-based training for firearms: developing firearms training designed to not only work with the way the brain processes information best but to rewire the brain to use that training while under threat-to-life stress is an evolution. If you don’t understand where firearms training came from, or where it is today measured against the common standards of adult education, it can be hard to understand the jump in evolution or the significance of the approach. It’s not necessary for you to have any kind of intellectual understanding about neurology/cognition/brain physiology/anatomy to improve your performance; you work through the designed processes/exercises and you improve. Or you don’t. Period.

Don’t take my word for it. Try it and measure it yourself. The more stress you put yourself under the more your improvement will come out.

The next post:

Von Steuben and the 18th Century Pedagogy of Firearms Training vs. 21st Century Andragogy, or How to Teach A 21st Century Adult and Not A 18th Century Idiot Peasant (Even Allowing For Achy Men)