Totally Subconscious Shooting?? (Long)

[guy from far far away]

It is really funny to see that Chet Skinner still fights on the TT board. He is un-removable, permanent like a waterproof marker. And so many people try to "kill" him on the Forum. Wow, that's life... And life is full of traps... And sometimes very strange things happen. How to say, yeah... I will not post this with my real name - sorry. I do not want to be "killed" on the Forum. But with enormous agreement with your opinions on some Chet's statements I have to say... God! It is difficult, but it is true... I bought his book some years ago, and was reading it like a bestseller (at that time I had no other books on shooting). I based on this book with my training (some medals on national level) and still use some ideas from his book (not so many, but...) when coaching my shooters (among them national champion, vice champion, etc. level AR 591, FR 592/399, 3P 1150 and still growing). Another question is how much of that what Chet is writting is really HIS idea. That makes some problems, but some of ideas I never saw in another books. So, do not ban him. Just select if there is something usefull, and remember that some of ideas may not be exactly, directly his ideas. And better stop posting ON Chet, as this makes more mess than just omitting his posts or select them...

Guy from far far away ;-)

[Ed Hall]

As the originl poster, discussing the roles of conscious and subconscious, I don't mind the addition of unconscious aspects that have been addressed by Chet. Whether I believe in them or not at this time, isn't an issue. Many of my beliefs have changed throughout my shooting (and life) studies. I'm not always believed either, and that may be because I'm not correct. Each of us is travelling our own life's course, picking up the information we will make use of, and more importantly, understanding the information we receive in our own personal way. I've studied varied aspects of conscious, subconscious, unconscious, altered states, etc. in their relation to shooting and elsewhere. I'm not opposed to Chet adding his view to my threads, but it is disconcerting to see hot disputes going on that will invariably create harsh feelings and may bring the moderator (Scott) down upon us.

The board currently enjoys a relaxed use, whereas anyone can join in the discussions without being "mothered." Outbursts of name-calling and "heated" debates will ruin that freedom. So would continual misuse by posters. If we cannot behave ourselves within the current workings - all of us - we will be forced into a more restricive mode and many won't post at all. I would be disappointed to see that happen. I would also be disappointed to see this thread deleted. Look at that - up to five pages...

Obviously, I respect Scott's wishes (and terms), and thank him for the use of this forum, which he provides with his funds and time. If his wishes include banning users, then I must also go along with that - even if I'm one that is banned. Although I'm not in favor of banning due to content conflict, I can for sure see it due to disruption of the orderly workings because of heated discussions.

I hope we can get back to those nuggets of wisdom we are all seeking, without entering into a huge battle over whether certain of us are full of it, or not. I must now go check whether the amount of brown in my eye has increased...<smile>

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

[Chet Skinner]

Hello every one. I see I have been deleted again. Freedom of speach is still on the federal books and althout the owner of this web can do a lot of things he cannot violate the rights and privlages allowed by the Bill of rights.

Any way her we go.

In one of my post I said that we have the conscious and subconscious mental entities and this is where we do most of our thinking. Because of the conscious and subscious being the analyzer of the brain we naturally do most of our thinking there without realizing it does not have a thing to do with the unconscious motor functions. This is the cause of many of your problems.

To achieve the unknown trigger pull sequences you must formulate a checklist for the unconscious mental functioning. As each step is steped by you acknowledge its passing and if it was correct or not. Based upon this stepping analysis the unconscious which is the motor control element then causes the trigger to be pulled automatically without you consciously have knowledge of its passing.

The same thing happens with the sighting phase in that the eye takes a snapshot of the external world then the conscious analyzes the image and if acceptable trans mitts it to the visual cortex wher the unconscious formulates the necessary instructions that incorperates the accepted goal and instructions to the neuromuscular groups for implementation.
What you fail to understand tis that sighting reall occurs before you start the shooting phase and validating the PBE and natural point of aim.

It is the natural point of aim that forms the basis for unconscious mental alignment after the eyes go blank. The eidetic image is the image that is subsituted for the live image from the eyes and becomes the image used for the unconscious to issue muscle change instructions. As the eidetic image is all inportant here we must have a PBE as the image.

With kinesthetic feed back we instinctively know what and where the bullet will hit the target. So if you analysis the last bad shot then this becomes the eidetic image used by the unconscious mental entity for sighting and of course is a random image for the sighting function. For this reason the PBE must always be the last image viewed on the visual cortex before trigger pull time. Never count or analyze the last shot. Clear it from the mind and start the next one shot match to the goal of the PBE.

The winning athlete is always the athlete that eliminates all the personal errors of technique. The goal is always the PBE as other is only objectives and not goals.

See I can help when allow to.

Chet Skinner, Coach

[Sparks]

Hello every one. I see I have been deleted again. Freedom of speach is still on the federal books and althout the owner of this web can do a lot of things he cannot violate the rights and privlages allowed by the Bill of rights.

Chet, according to your reply to David on another thread, you're in the UK. Therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply to you.
Take your own advice:

please stop your legal ranting unless you are a full licened attorney and able to practice in front of the Old Baily

The same thing happens with the sighting phase in that the eye takes a snapshot of the external world then the conscious analyzes the image and if acceptable trans mitts it to the visual cortex wher the unconscious formulates the necessary instructions that incorperates the accepted goal and instructions to the neuromuscular groups for implementation.

That's bull.
Pure and utter bull.
As I pointed out above, the processing in the visual system starts within the first two or three cell layers in the retina itself (assuming you don't count the iris and lens as processing elements). By the time the signals reach the optic nerve, they no longer represent an image as we understand that term. Edge detection, motion detection, optical flow, all of these kinds of algorithims have already been started and you are not passing any kind of "image" down the optic nerves. Further, the eye does not take "snapshots". It simply cannot do that, it's not physically set up to do so. Your retinal cells are one-shot retriggerable things. A photon hits the cell, destabilises some specific chemicals called opsins, which destabilise over different energy levels (which correspond to different frequencies of light, or colours as we like to call them - red, green, blue) and this triggers the neuron to fire. That impulse sent into the retinal system, the cell then does nothing until these molecules regenerate. This takes an amount of time dependent on how bright the light was. Ever walk into the dark from a bright room? Notice how long it takes to get your "night vision" back? That's what you're waiting on - for the Rhodopsin in your rods to regenerate so the photoreceptors in your retina can fire again. Until that happens, you're literally blind.

Here's the thing - that regeneration of the opsins is not sychronised across the eye. Nor is the delivery of information from photoreceptors. In other words, we do not capture all the information hitting the retina at one moment in time - we do not take pictures with our eyes.

Doesn't happen. Can't happen. We don't have the required physical circuitry wired into us. The brain has to compensate by integrating information into a model of the world around us, and that's what leads to things like the persistance of vision tricks - you're not seeing a real image in that what you see is not what's in front of you, what you're seeing (with persistance-of-vision illusions) is an integration of what's come from the optic nerve in the last one or two hundred milliseconds.

The eidetic image is the image that is subsituted for the live image from the eyes and becomes the image used for the unconscious to issue muscle change instructions.

That's the Perky Effect you're describing (quite badly, see below) and as was just explained a post or two back, it can't be reproduced without putting the subject in a suggestable relaxed state, close in fact to sleep. When the subject is awake and aware of his or her surroundings, it doesn't happen. When the subject is stressed (as they would be in a match), it doesn't happen. When the image the subject is looking at is well-lit and clearly defined (as it is when looking through rifle sights or at pistol sights), it cannot happen. And when the subject is paying attention to what they're looking at (as happens when shooting), it doesn't happen.
In other words, what you're describing does not work because the fundamental foundation for it does not - can not - happen.

The winning athlete is always the athlete that eliminates all the personal errors of technique.

Wrong. As shown many times in the history of sport, the winning athlete is not necessarily the most technically proficient - he or she was the one who wanted to win the most. Especially at Olympic level, where technical proficiency of the highest level is a prerequisite before you even start.

See I can help when allow to.

Not unless you define 'help' as 'spouting misunderstood disproven theories in a mass of ill-understood and misspelt technical terms that put together make as much sense as a corporate mission statement translated from japanese by an illiterate dyslexic bulgarian', you can't.

[n1heu]

[quote="Chet Skinner"]Hello every one. I see I have been deleted again. Freedom of speach is still on the federal books and althout the owner of this web can do a lot of things he cannot violate the rights and privlages allowed by the Bill of rights.


Not to muddy the waters, but apparently the esteemed coach did not read or understand the answer to his complaint in another thread. For his edification I repeat it here.

The First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Mister Pilkington is not the United States Government is he?
Nobody from the US Government removed your remarks did they?
I personally detest when people passing themselves off as educated Americans do not know the most elementary things about how this country is supposed to be governed.
You want to whine? Start your own website with your own money and spout all the drivel you care to.
No one from the Government will stop you, I promise.
You can start your own religion or newspaper.
You can petition your government for redress and peaceably assemble in protest, no one from the government may stop you.
But here on this site you have no cause of action or standing for complaint.
You must have been schooled by chimps to think that the Constitution protects your right to puke mindless trash on the internet.
Get over it and move along.


Now back to the subject at hand. Any relaxation technique will work to clear your head before and during a match. Some play checkers in their cartridge box with their rounds between shots. Some run a quiet tune in their head. Some (as I do) stare at the wood grain pattern on my stock making pictures like cloud watching. The truly helpful suggestion I always give is to shoot one shot matches. It is not my idea of course. It is widely taught as a technique by many real coaches. But it simplifies the entire arguement to it's most basic level. To be a decent shooter you must not get hung up on performance and score totals during a match. The next shot you are setting up for is the most important one. The one you just took is ancient history. When you fire this one it will be gone forever and you can work on concentrating on this next shot. Very basic and easy to break down for yourself.
But, then again, what do I know? I'm not an award winning author, a doctor, a gold medal winning coach and a shooter since 1948 as others have claimed.

mike

[David Levene]

Any relaxation technique will work to clear your head before and during a match. Some play checkers in their cartridge box with their rounds between shots. Some run a quiet tune in their head. Some (as I do) stare at the wood grain pattern on my stock making pictures like cloud watching.

I don't know if you have them in the US but I used to have an extremely complicated rugby song I used to sing (mentally) while the targets were being scored. I'm not totally certain it was relaxation, but it was a good diversion and concentration break.

[Elmas]

The winning athlete is always the athlete that eliminates all the personal errors of technique.

Wrong. As shown many times in the history of sport, the winning athlete is not necessarily the most technically proficient - he or she was the one who wanted to win the most. Especially at Olympic level, where technical proficiency of the highest level is a prerequisite before you even start.

I beg to differ here.... Wanting to win the most ......... is one of the reasons people fall flat in competitions esp. at Olympic Level ... where being an 'ice man' is paramount .

Perhaps you meant wanting to win the most in the sense that , he was the one who put more training hours and more preparation ? But where's luck and talent in all of this ?? The Chinese champion lost to the Italian by just o.1 points !! That's luck isnt it ?

I think one should go into a match with as much 'equanimity' to the result as is humanly possible... Your performance is 'predetermined by your current level of aptitude in its totality at the time '.
You go into the match in the hope of repeating your performance without 'blowing it'.
Wanting desperately to to win the most , could be one of the many possible causes for 'blowing it' .


Elmas

.

[RobStubbs]

[ I think one should go into a match with as much 'equanimity' to the result as is humanly possible... Your performance is 'predetermined by your current level of aptitude in its totality at the time '.
You go into the match in the hope of repeating your performance without 'blowing it'.
Wanting desperately to to win the most , could be one of the many possible causes for 'blowing it' .


Elmas

.

I think I half agree with you, I may just be miss reading bits. The act of shooting is to shoot technially good shots and repeat it. It is irrelevent whether it's a club match or the olympics, the process is identical. The difficult bit is getting your head in the right state such that you really are just focussing on what matters and not on the situation (event), your past failures or any elment associated with the final score. If you can do all that and be in the perfect state of 'arousal' then good scores are on the cards.

Rob.

[Steve Swartz]

"To be a champion, you need to be the one who wants to win the most- in training. At the starting [firing] line, you must be the one who cares the least about the outcome and focus only on your own personal behaviors."

[isuguncoach]

A great thread and credit to all, many great ideas on concious and unconcious thought. A different idea!!!

We train or coach shooters on a set of muscle skills. We or they put in hours of practice to learn the exact sight picture to break a shoot. Practice rewards the good behaviors (sight picture and trigger break) to the point that the unconcious "knows" a good shot. From this point further practice refines this unconcious process, to the point that we or they know when a shot was good. Several posters have mentioned this "being in the zone", or I just felt "right".

Then we or they get to a match and start the dreaded "thinking about what we are doing", and the scores go down the drain.

Does this point to a mental process of the unconcious has learned the shot plan from lift to follow thru, to some level of proficiency, and out concious thinking has acted as a disruption to this mental shot plan???

Several posters have mentioned doing various mental tricks, the goal of which seems to be to keep our or their concious processes out of the shot plan process that is uncontrolled by the trained unconcious.

Mental training goals by a coach would be to practice enough to firmly establish unconcious control of the shot plan, and then keep the concious mind busy with something inocuous enough to not bother the process.

[coolcruiser]

This has been a most helpful thread.
Regarding distractions that result in better performance; a while back I suffered severe headaches for several months (turned out to be subdural hematoma) I was able to shoot very well during that period . My inner position was influenced in that shooting was a distraction from the severe, nearly constant pain. Conversely the pain was an equal distraction from controlling my shooting. Unfortunately my mental state was so disorganized that I didn't keep any notes to document what exactly was going on...I was just happy to shoot well. They drilled a couple of holes in my head, drained off a cup of blood and I took a year off from shooting. Now I am back in the game...no headaches...but the control freak is back along with his friends chicken finger and analysis paralysis. Great thread.

[BOOOB Y]

In all shooting sports the cognitive element uses the timing of the aspect being use or shot. The Conscious uses Objective Timing, the Unconscious uses Subjective Timing. The difference is speed of the timing in each case. The conscious uses the same timing as Big Ben and is slow.
The subconscius uses Subjective timing which is very fast adn is or can be 1/1ooth of a seond for any mental function. So with the Snapshot eye timing it is very possiable for the shooting athlete. So the eye can take snapshots of any pictorial representative and produce a eidetic image for use on the natural point of aim and center of mass for the brief sighting sequence to achieve the PBE on the target. The sighting time is 1/100 of a second time period and then trigger pull time. This is all controlled by the cognitive element. So the one shot match will take one full second or less. Not the 6 or more seconds as they want you to believe.

[Boooby]

Subconscious is not a mental function as such.
Unconscious is used in place of subconscious but the athlete does not realize it. Th athlete calles it the subconscious when it is the unconscious mental entity instead. The subconsious is nothing more then automatic mental function of the conscious mental entity. It basically has nothing to do with the unconscious mental entity. Do you also know your eyes go blank at or beyond the one second time limit?