A couple takeaways from the Taylor article and your comments. I agree that a low ready position would allow the officer to have a better view of the subject and would provide that 0.11 sec delay to identify the presented object before firing. While the low ready is a staple in LE and civilian training, marksmanship from that position is wanting. There are other methods that provide unobstructed views of the subject and a rapid firing response once the threat/non-threat is identified. That method is the 360° CQD (Close Quarter Defense) formerly Central Axis Relock (see www.naturaltactical.com). The Combat Ready position provides an unobstructed view of the subject with the muzzle pointed off body and the ability to affect a rapid sighted shot when needed.
I think it would be more instructive to see how the officers in the gun scenarios group that had no false-negative errors would do in the cell phone scenario. In addition, first hit accuracy was not measured. Even using a SIRT laser pistol, shot placement is easily identified. One of the problems with rapidly moving from low ready to target location, especially under any stress, is overshooting the target area or bobbling sight picture (depending on type of sights) if using sighted fire, or just point shooting. No distance was given and no information of shooting techniques provided.
I am a fan of the Ecological Dynamic approach and, as you note, the critical information to act needs to be perceived from the contextual environment. That brings up two issues not addressed in the study, the first, which you did address in your comments. They are: Game IQ, the ability to perceive the cues of where and what to look for i.e., early subject movement and what is in the hand, and Gaze-Action Coupling. Lewinsky/Vickers (2012) study showed that elite officers didn’t draw their weapon faster than rookies, but they did so sooner because they used Game IQ to identify early movement. In addition, they used visual focus (gaze control) on where a weapon or non-weapon would be produced. After ID, the gaze moved to center mass for an accurate hit. Even then there were some false positives.
Dr. Taylor, in discussing his study with Chris Butler on the Trainers Bullpen, episode 14, made some critical observations about police in the Netherlands doing a similar exercise. They had no false-positives. The reason given was that the officers moved offline, drew their weapon and fired appropriately to the threat. They could not get the officers to shoot the cell phone scenario until they constrained their movement. This has enormous implications for LE and civilian training.
Your goalie example is spot on. As noted, goalies who can move faster than less capable goalies, can wait longer (to gain more information) before moving. Applying this to training, moving quickly offline (not just a side step) would provide more time to evaluate the object/threat before shooting than 0.11 seconds.
Alan these are all good comments! Thanks for taking the time! A couple of notes.
1. I think the big point of the study here is that if you are holding your weapon in your visual field you should be aware that you are limiting the information you are getting. I am sure there are a variety of ways to hold the weapon besides low ready (like combat ready) that may have other strengths and weaknesses.
2. I agree game IQ is important. In the Eco world they would say attunement - meaning that you are dialed into the important (or specifying) information in a given context. I would be very careful saying that we know what that information is because our sensory systems are amazing and we are often picking up things that we are cognitively unaware of. For example, blindfolded people can guess the shape of a piece of metal that is hit with a mallet. They aren't great at it, but they do better than chance (without any practice or training). Who knew that there was shape information in sound that our perceptual systems had made sense of?
3. I think displacement (moving off line) makes sense a lot of sense. In addition to making it harder to hit you, action is required for perception and vice versa. You probably get better perceptual information because you moved or are moving (e.g. you can see how the person is tracking you, you get a different angle of view, ect.). I am also a big fan of training movement in shooting because that is what we tend to see in actual shootings.
Dr. Blair,
A couple takeaways from the Taylor article and your comments. I agree that a low ready position would allow the officer to have a better view of the subject and would provide that 0.11 sec delay to identify the presented object before firing. While the low ready is a staple in LE and civilian training, marksmanship from that position is wanting. There are other methods that provide unobstructed views of the subject and a rapid firing response once the threat/non-threat is identified. That method is the 360° CQD (Close Quarter Defense) formerly Central Axis Relock (see www.naturaltactical.com). The Combat Ready position provides an unobstructed view of the subject with the muzzle pointed off body and the ability to affect a rapid sighted shot when needed.
I think it would be more instructive to see how the officers in the gun scenarios group that had no false-negative errors would do in the cell phone scenario. In addition, first hit accuracy was not measured. Even using a SIRT laser pistol, shot placement is easily identified. One of the problems with rapidly moving from low ready to target location, especially under any stress, is overshooting the target area or bobbling sight picture (depending on type of sights) if using sighted fire, or just point shooting. No distance was given and no information of shooting techniques provided.
I am a fan of the Ecological Dynamic approach and, as you note, the critical information to act needs to be perceived from the contextual environment. That brings up two issues not addressed in the study, the first, which you did address in your comments. They are: Game IQ, the ability to perceive the cues of where and what to look for i.e., early subject movement and what is in the hand, and Gaze-Action Coupling. Lewinsky/Vickers (2012) study showed that elite officers didn’t draw their weapon faster than rookies, but they did so sooner because they used Game IQ to identify early movement. In addition, they used visual focus (gaze control) on where a weapon or non-weapon would be produced. After ID, the gaze moved to center mass for an accurate hit. Even then there were some false positives.
Dr. Taylor, in discussing his study with Chris Butler on the Trainers Bullpen, episode 14, made some critical observations about police in the Netherlands doing a similar exercise. They had no false-positives. The reason given was that the officers moved offline, drew their weapon and fired appropriately to the threat. They could not get the officers to shoot the cell phone scenario until they constrained their movement. This has enormous implications for LE and civilian training.
Your goalie example is spot on. As noted, goalies who can move faster than less capable goalies, can wait longer (to gain more information) before moving. Applying this to training, moving quickly offline (not just a side step) would provide more time to evaluate the object/threat before shooting than 0.11 seconds.
Just some thoughts.
Alan Kerby
Alan these are all good comments! Thanks for taking the time! A couple of notes.
1. I think the big point of the study here is that if you are holding your weapon in your visual field you should be aware that you are limiting the information you are getting. I am sure there are a variety of ways to hold the weapon besides low ready (like combat ready) that may have other strengths and weaknesses.
2. I agree game IQ is important. In the Eco world they would say attunement - meaning that you are dialed into the important (or specifying) information in a given context. I would be very careful saying that we know what that information is because our sensory systems are amazing and we are often picking up things that we are cognitively unaware of. For example, blindfolded people can guess the shape of a piece of metal that is hit with a mallet. They aren't great at it, but they do better than chance (without any practice or training). Who knew that there was shape information in sound that our perceptual systems had made sense of?
3. I think displacement (moving off line) makes sense a lot of sense. In addition to making it harder to hit you, action is required for perception and vice versa. You probably get better perceptual information because you moved or are moving (e.g. you can see how the person is tracking you, you get a different angle of view, ect.). I am also a big fan of training movement in shooting because that is what we tend to see in actual shootings.