this.
Watching videos from those guys, they're plainly capable of articulating ideas and concepts in a clear manner that non- mil people can grasp.
They dont need need to mask a lack of experience with pseudoscience and buzzwords.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Effective Instructor: "Combat" Experience Required?
- Thread starter Jackson
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Watching videos from those guys, they're plainly capable of articulating ideas and concepts in a clear manner that non- mil people can grasp.
They dont need need to mask a lack of experience with pseudoscience and buzzwords.
Sort of, but essentially "the masses" are their target market. Want to increase market share? Cater to the needs of the consumer, especially when your product isn't a necessity in most people's mind.
After you edited: That's essentially what I'm driving at. In professional training development, businesses cannot afford to not reach each of their students effectively. Therefore, they alter their teaching styles and outputs to best suit the majority of people and how they most effectively learn. Military guys are less willing to learn and alter their predisposed ideas of what's "right" than others, even if you can prove the effectiveness of doing so to them.
I'll have to look more into them later when I have time. I don't know a lot about them.
iChokePeople
Master
- Feb 11, 2011
- 4,556
- 48
You're assuming that "the masses" are their target audience. I'd submit that many of them know exactly what they're doing and choose to present the information in their own way.
iChokePeople
Master
- Feb 11, 2011
- 4,556
- 48
Oy, now THAT is some signature material and a great quality.
Read my revised last statement.
I'm actually not assuming that at all. I get what you're saying and don't disagree. There are a number of components at play. I'm simply saying that for many of the new up and coming instructors trying to make a name for themselves the larger target market may become a necessity starting out. It's all situational dependent of course.
On the opposite side of the exchange however, if they do get a few students who do not fit within such an instructor's narrowed niche target market what effect will that have? Then, such a person will not gain much from the class merely because the instructor prefers their own ideals and not willing to improve. Said person will then go back and tell dozens of friends how they didn't like the training by instructor X, and they may choose to refrain from taking his training because they value their friend's input. If they're willing to accept that risk as a professional trainer, then that's on them but it certainly doesn't make for an efficient business model for growth. Self assessment and improvement is a key component of any successful business whose job it is to serve the needs of the customer, not purely the needs of the business. It's a relationship, a two way street. Every decision has a reaction and impact, as does every lack of decision.
Last edited:
iChokePeople
Master
- Feb 11, 2011
- 4,556
- 48
"Such an instructor" often doesn't give a **** about Biff and Sally and trying to make their material fit everyone. They're trying to reach a particular segment, and if Biff and Sally happen to make a bad decision and attend one of their classes, that's unfortunate, but Paul Howe and those like him frequently aren't after that market. The ones who DO try to please Sally and Biff tend to alienate me. You can't please everyone, and many guys with this kind of experience don't care to try. I'm ok with that.
Anyway, just to get back on topic:
IMHO, no, it is absolutely not necessary, particularly in learning to shoot, learning mechanics, etc. But I'd submit that there's great value in it for some.
To go back to the basketball analogy because it seems to be more universally understood here in Indiana, you can learn to dribble and shoot from lots of people, you can learn the concepts of good offense and defense from lots of coaches or analysts, you can get great conditioning advice from tons of trainers. I'd guess that the best people to coach these FREQUENTLY weren't great ballers. You can use the example of Doug Blevins, if you like. But if you really want someone to tell you what it feels like to play for the NBA championship, or to have the ball in your hands for that final shot, you might be better served listening to Michael Jordan or one of those few who have done it. Sure, others can read their comments and study what they say and try to regurgitate it, but they never actually did it. For some, and from some, and for some subjects or objectives, there's value in that.
A lecture on mindset or what to expect in a real gunfight from a guy like Paul Howe might not be for everyone, but for some, it can have a tremendous effect.
My $.02, and my attempt to get it back on track.
David Rose
Sharpshooter
Still waiting rob.
David Rose
Sharpshooter
So now according to the standards setup by a few here he is definitely qualified to teach some kind of urban sniping course. As long as he sticks to the techniques used personally by him in his fights. Or, do those who follow this belief system expect that just shooting anyone in any situation unlocks knowledge and critical thinking skills unavailable to mere mortals?
Funny you should mention that. Over the weekend I was in a Mike Pannone class and he said almost the exact same thing, without mentioning any names.
Not sure how else it can be explained.
In this case, if you haven't heard of Travis Haley, you must be very new to firearms training. I invite you to practice your Google-Fu.
Have you either not read or not comprehended what was posted in this thread? No one is stated in absolute terms that military experience automatically enables them to teach civilians. I suggest a review.
If the light bulb does not illuminate, consider the horse watered.
Like I said earlier. Anyone can build a paper resume. It just takes time and money. Oh, and did I mention it is a ton of fun?
David Rose
Sharpshooter
I appreciate your honesty. You can't explain it, that's just the way it is.
What happens when two people on the approved list disagree. Is one of them having a hard time reading his secret decoder ring? Do we go by body count or does reason enter in the picture. If the answer is reason, then I ask again is reason magically imparted only upon shooting people?
Which of these groups would you rather train with?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6sARmxEuc
It isn't that someone has killed someone otherwise Zimmerman would've opened up a training clinic now. The difference is one group has done it every day as a professional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6sARmxEuc
It isn't that someone has killed someone otherwise Zimmerman would've opened up a training clinic now. The difference is one group has done it every day as a professional.
Some examples of a difference I perceive between experienced and non.
Haley was not just a contractor. If memory serves me correctly, he served in Recon for several years (12 I think?!?) He does not subscribe to the mantra of losing dexterity in a body alarm response situation, nor that of an inability to think clearly under stress (or at least not to the degree which many trainers profess).
While many people propose that these things do take place, often largely based on scientific studies, and many more profess that they are debilitating to one's ability to perform, he has the experience to say otherwise and does. Can we say that about those who profess and believe in those scientific beliefs? Do they share in the experience part or is it simply theorized? Is it the same level of experience?; ie a soldier on the ground kicking in the doors vs a commander giving them the order to from an observation point in a vehicle?
Of course, there may still be some who suggest they feel the opposite of Haley and who have similar experience. So, a grain of salt is still necessary in either case. The point here is that without the experience to say one way or another, we are to blindly believe another theory. So, there is certainly value to the experience in the APPROPRIATE contexts but people often fill that in where it doesn't really apply as well.
I hold it where it is best suited IMO to be that of mindset and physiological effects on the body or how to deal with those. Something only an experienced person can truly discuss. That doesn't inherently make them an expert shot or weapons manipulator however. It's imperative that each person can logically draw a line where skills and experience are truly applicable and I think more often than not, recent veterans tend to fail at that more than others based on my work.
Personally, I tend to agree with Haley much more in terms of perspective based on my own previous experience. Although my encounters have mostly been of the civilian variety, I don't believe in the significant loss of dexterity or lack of ability to reason either. If anything, I would describe those situations as being extraordinarily slowed down thanks to the body's reaction, and enabling me to think more clearly, concisely, and much more quickly than I would have under normal situations. Perhaps, more "efficiently" would be the best term. I can certainly say that the narrowed vision occurs, but it's not all that difficult to get past and the more you're exposed to these reactions the more used to it you get, and the less effect it has on you.
In any regard, there are elements of truth in everything. More often than not, it's a mixture of pieces of each perspective combined which result in the most accurate answers to questions and this context is no different IMO. Yet, as humans we are nearly hardwired to seek out a simple cookie cutter solution which we can apply to the majority of situations or questions. So, it's difficult for us to deal with the fact that this isn't always possible and we continue to disregard that fact too often when we should really be digging for greater understanding rather than simple solutions; which is the point of this thread IMO.
To boil it down in my perspective:
Experienced shooters obtain their experience and knowledge through shooting/competing. Hence, they are more than qualified to teach on those mechanical skills (assuming they can teach well).
Likewise, experienced soldiers are best qualified to teach on tactical responses to a threat, the physiological effects on the body, and how to deal with them, as well as the emotional effects (again assuming they can teach well).
That doesn't mean they cannot teach how to adequately function a firearm, but it also doesn't mean they are an expert shooter either.
Ultimately, I think we have too many people who are trying to be all of the above and rather than focusing on what they individually have to offer in expertise from their experience (if not stepping outside of their actual experience entirely; likely out of ego, as in many cases).
Haley was not just a contractor. If memory serves me correctly, he served in Recon for several years (12 I think?!?) He does not subscribe to the mantra of losing dexterity in a body alarm response situation, nor that of an inability to think clearly under stress (or at least not to the degree which many trainers profess).
While many people propose that these things do take place, often largely based on scientific studies, and many more profess that they are debilitating to one's ability to perform, he has the experience to say otherwise and does. Can we say that about those who profess and believe in those scientific beliefs? Do they share in the experience part or is it simply theorized? Is it the same level of experience?; ie a soldier on the ground kicking in the doors vs a commander giving them the order to from an observation point in a vehicle?
Of course, there may still be some who suggest they feel the opposite of Haley and who have similar experience. So, a grain of salt is still necessary in either case. The point here is that without the experience to say one way or another, we are to blindly believe another theory. So, there is certainly value to the experience in the APPROPRIATE contexts but people often fill that in where it doesn't really apply as well.
I hold it where it is best suited IMO to be that of mindset and physiological effects on the body or how to deal with those. Something only an experienced person can truly discuss. That doesn't inherently make them an expert shot or weapons manipulator however. It's imperative that each person can logically draw a line where skills and experience are truly applicable and I think more often than not, recent veterans tend to fail at that more than others based on my work.
Personally, I tend to agree with Haley much more in terms of perspective based on my own previous experience. Although my encounters have mostly been of the civilian variety, I don't believe in the significant loss of dexterity or lack of ability to reason either. If anything, I would describe those situations as being extraordinarily slowed down thanks to the body's reaction, and enabling me to think more clearly, concisely, and much more quickly than I would have under normal situations. Perhaps, more "efficiently" would be the best term. I can certainly say that the narrowed vision occurs, but it's not all that difficult to get past and the more you're exposed to these reactions the more used to it you get, and the less effect it has on you.
In any regard, there are elements of truth in everything. More often than not, it's a mixture of pieces of each perspective combined which result in the most accurate answers to questions and this context is no different IMO. Yet, as humans we are nearly hardwired to seek out a simple cookie cutter solution which we can apply to the majority of situations or questions. So, it's difficult for us to deal with the fact that this isn't always possible and we continue to disregard that fact too often when we should really be digging for greater understanding rather than simple solutions; which is the point of this thread IMO.
To boil it down in my perspective:
Experienced shooters obtain their experience and knowledge through shooting/competing. Hence, they are more than qualified to teach on those mechanical skills (assuming they can teach well).
Likewise, experienced soldiers are best qualified to teach on tactical responses to a threat, the physiological effects on the body, and how to deal with them, as well as the emotional effects (again assuming they can teach well).
That doesn't mean they cannot teach how to adequately function a firearm, but it also doesn't mean they are an expert shooter either.
Ultimately, I think we have too many people who are trying to be all of the above and rather than focusing on what they individually have to offer in expertise from their experience (if not stepping outside of their actual experience entirely; likely out of ego, as in many cases).
Last edited:
David Rose
Sharpshooter
Science has literally been thrown under the bus. I would suggest that you look up studies regarding memory formation and stress... but now that science is out the window I can't.
They're called "studies" for a reason......
I would suggest you look up "cognitive biases" and/or heuristics....
Last edited:
