Snake oil trainers?

[cedartop]

Antifragile Training: Snake Oil Salesmen in Self Defense

Not really new, some of you have probably heard Josh and I, and others say similar things. I am interested in feedback on what he says about using dedicated role players and instructors only in scenarios.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I stay highly skeptical of methods in which only designated role players or the instructor themselves act out the role of adversary.

I'm conflicted and I've done both types. I've also been the dedicated role player, and I think I performed the task with integrity.

I think "integrity" is what it boils down to. If the instructor is feeding you a line he can intentionally fail and make it seem like you won. If he has integrity he can make the scenario realistic, or at least as realistic as your skill set allows.

The time I was the designated attacker that comes to mind wasn't firearms training. It was a women's self defense class and many of the carried some type of pepper spray. The instructor wanted them to understand that it wasn't the best choice, that carrying it in your purse was likely to mean you couldn't get it in time, and that if you never practiced with it you may miss. I was the "attacker" and my sole job was to run at the woman from 7-10y and try to touch them. If I touched them, it was assumed they lost. I tried as hard as I could, and if I got sprayed I tried to push through it and get them anyway. If someone was intent on showing how awesome OC was, they could roll over and play dead at the first whiff of pepper. I understand that. However just because you use dedicated role players doesn't mean you don't have the integrity to play it true. Having other students do it was impossible. How many women will volunteer to be sprayed repeatedly with OC? What's the odds of injury if you have untrained vs untrained go at it?

 

[iChokePeople]

I think BBI nailed it. The potential *advantage* to dedicated role-players, IMHO, is that you MIGHT get more realistic scenarios. I've done FoF stuff from civilian one on one all the way up to rotations at the National Training Center and Combat Maneuver Training Center. Some were great, others were worthless. One of the keys to scenario-based FoF success is the skill of the role players/enemy. Having dedicated/professional role players *can* provide much better consistency and a better experience. Or, as we've all seen, it can make the training worthless. So... "it depends."

 

[cedartop]

Lack of ambiguity.
Reality is foggy. Not everyone reaching in their pocket when they ask for a light is going for a gun, and there is a mental safety net with the above mentioned type of pressure. The student on student evolution is key. It lends to unpredictability and apprehension thus evoking the sort of emotional response we need to learn to manage for real life encounters.

Thanks for the responses. You guys are right, but even though I read the thing multiple times, I missed the point you are making and instead focused on the above paragraph.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, yeah, but can't the instructor just sometimes pull out a light and sometimes pull out a gun? I mean, that's how they do it at our police range. Instructor "A" is in the room. Sometimes you go in and he's just minding his business and has no idea why you are there. Sometimes he's got a gun to his own head. Sometimes he's throwing things around but isn't directly threatening anyone. Just like the real world, you're given a dispatch but sometimes what you are confronted with is not what you were told going in.

iChoke brought up something I'd forgotten about, participating in exercises at NTC. If it was too sloppily trained units going at each other, what's learned vs a sloppy unit getting decimated by the home team that's well prepared on their home turf? I think that would apply to individual training as well. If I can beat most guys just due to size, strength, and reflex speed I'm not going to learn much going up against other slobs. Going up against even a semi-trained boxer who cleans my clock may well learn me something, though.

 

[iChokePeople]

I agree with the primary point I believe he's making about ambiguity and the reality that you can't draw on anyone inside your 21' circle of death, or anyone reaching in their pocket. Completely. Not sure that student v student necessarily facilitates teaching that any better than an instructor, though. I think a well-designed scenario could create those kinds of issues just as well as, or maybe better than, another student who was just given that role. There are definitely a couple of areas in which I think student v student is better... not sure that's one of them. I also agree that student v student "lends to unpredictability", for both better and worse.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree with the primary point I believe he's making about ambiguity and the reality that you can't draw on anyone inside your 21' circle of death, or anyone reaching in their pocket. Completely. Not sure that student v student necessarily facilitates teaching that any better than an instructor, though. I think a well-designed scenario could create those kinds of issues just as well as, or maybe better than, another student who was just given that role. There are definitely a couple of areas in which I think student v student is better... not sure that's one of them. I also agree that student v student "lends to unpredictability", for both better and worse.

I think that's where I'm getting lost with the author of the article. If the student on student is always the same scenario and you know what's coming, how is that any more unpredictable than an instructor doing who knows what?

 

[GIJEW]

I think that's where I'm getting lost with the author of the article. If the student on student is always the same scenario and you know what's coming, how is that any more unpredictable than an instructor doing who knows what?

I was taking aikido lessons for awhile. We spent our time rehearsing techniques with one of each pair being the 'uke'/fall guy. One day I got paired with a new student who didn't know that the punch was supposed to be a straight-line punch, and he threw a right hook instead.

 

[Stickfight]

There is a tremendous amount of argument by authority in the self defense training business, and most of that is wrapped up with instructor creds rooted in either police work or military. It is strange because neither of those occupations has much overlap with the situations most people are likely to face.

 

[JBishop]

Well, I've also done it both ways. No dedicated roleplayers= too many "Wild Bunch" shootouts. A skilled roleplayer can objectively measure shoot/no shoot for students, and can keep a level of consistency with students, while making sure that learning takes place. An instructor with a dedicated roleplayer can provide a great teaching tool- The instructor knows how the consistent roleplayer acts, then the instructor gets a clear picture of how students react.
The downside to a dedicated roleplayers/instructors is that it can possibly slow training way down, because you can't get the reps/scenarios to provide a learning curve for students.

I've also been around when an instructor was holding back on lesser trained students (not doing them any favors), I can see that there is a potential for an instructor to pass a student through because of external pressure (student=customer, wanting the student to come back, pressure from a command staff to get a cadet/recruit through, etc)

On either side, I believe the instructor running the FoF scenarios should be able to not be involved in the scenarios themselves. It's hard to judge objectively how students are doing and provide needed feedback from inside the helmet. They can always rotate through, but one instructor should always be "outside" the roleplayers.
Worst thing in the world is when an instructor's ego is bruised, and won't acknowledge success because they "can't lose". The bruised ego/refuse to lose attitude may be more prevalent with other peers/students than dedicated roleplayers though.

Oftentimes it will all come down to logistics.

 

[Shay]

Type of pressure.
I stay highly skeptical of methods in which only designated role players or the instructor themselves act out the role of adversary. If they are charlatans then it behooves them to feed the student reactions they expect and mimic their techniques expected results. There is a place for this type of work, but devoid of any real unpredictable competitive pressure within a peer group the student has no access to true winning and losing.

I disagree.

Perhaps the writer is referring to some sort of skill-based FoF exercises? I'm not sure because he's not specific.

Student-on-student scenario-based Force on Force can't compare to using trained, dedicated, experienced role players. Dedicated role players give a much more consistent product and maintain the object nature of a scenario. They also stay in character and can avoid pitfalls that distract from the realism of the training.

Students vary widely in their size, fitness, abilities and Mindsets. Pitting student A against student B sounds reasonable on paper, but if there is a large mismatch, one student will fail badly without learning and the other will win badly without learning.