Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Beyond Trust


Flexmoney

Recommended Posts

My mind is hungry for more of this talk about trusting and knowing. Last year I was on a mental quest for aggressiveness. Now I realize what I really was looking for was TRUST. Trusting myself...letting myself go....allowing my subconscious to do what I've trained it to do. I desperately want to find that place. The experience of trusting leads to knowing. I want to experience trust so I can know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My mind is hungry for more of this talk about trusting and knowing. Last year I was on a mental quest for aggressiveness. Now I realize what I really was looking for was TRUST. Trusting myself...letting myself go....allowing my subconscious to do what I've trained it to do. I desperately want to find that place. The experience of trusting leads to knowing. I want to experience trust so I can know.

You've mapped out the journey... You and your skills are on one side of the river, and effortless, doubt-free execution is on the other. Trusting is the bridge between the two.

Before you can get and stay on the bridge, you have to have trained until you have no doubts about the best way to handle any situation you might encounter. What do you need to see to know you are hitting any target - as you are shooting it? What is the best way for you to shoot "this group of targets" as you are leaving that position? What is the best way for you to shoot "these targets" as you are coming into position? Should I "push" on this stage, or just shoot for good points? Or is that question even raised?

When all your skills are backed up by a sense of certainty, as long as you don't get too excited, you'll begin to feel what it's like to walk on the bridge.

Train until you are doubt free. Then convince yourself that what you have trained to do is all that you need to do. Now you're at the match and you've got one shot at it. What will be your approach? Where will you place your attention so that all your skills have the best chance of appearing? Clearly understanding this, to me, is the payoff.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've mapped out the journey... You and your skills are on one side of the river, and effortless, doubt-free execution is on the other. Trusting is the bridge between the two.

You are a wise one. I agree that trust is a bridge. I have a feeling that finding that bridge and crossing it is going to lead me to a better understanding of myself.

My mind continues to meditate on trust. I'm seeing that I have many baby steps to take to get to the bridge. For example.....I was dry firing last night and I noticed that I was looking at my holster when holstering my gun. A little voice said to me, "Can't you trust yourself enough to holster the gun without looking?" So I did and guess what? I can holster my gun just fine without looking. The same dry fire session I noticed I'm having trouble finding my sight at the end of my draw. The little voice says to me, "Can't you trust that your natural point of aim will bring the gun to the target?" Hey guess what....when I kept my focus on the target and allowed the gun to come to it without consciously looking for my sight...it was there. Duh! It gets better. My weakness is swingers. I've been working on them for the past few weeks. I've been unable to get consistenly in the A. I now know why. For me to get in the A zone with the swinger I'm practicing with (the swinger is fast with very little pause)....I have to fire BEFORE the target comes into my sight. I HATE THAT! Why? Because I have to TRUST that the target will be there. It was EXTREMELY uncomfortable for me to pull the trigger at something I couldn't see. I did see the sights lift into the brown when the shot was fired, but that is not the same as actually seeing brown behind your sight before you pull the trigger. Bottom line....I have trust issues. When I told my husband that I have trust issues...he just laughed :) I guess he has known this for sometime. :)

THANK YOU FLEX, Benos, and all who have contributed to this thread! You all have really helped me on my journey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane: looks like you got benos to punch out one of his bests posts ever. Thank you for that!

On the first reading [of several] Brian's advice reminded me of what it is like to land an airplane - in a gusty crosswind - with the flight instructor calmly sitting in the other seat with his hands in his lap. The first time he does that your mind is saying, "I'm not ready, I can't think my way thru this fast enough."

And then you do it anyway.

After that first unassisted landing, you realize you had booked enough experience, enough conditioned reactions, to get the job done WITHOUT thinking. A pilot will say the word "Zen" in this context more than any other.

What you're asking about, it's just like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

WOW,

This just came up in a discussion I had with a guy in my office that shoots with me.

My shooting has really gotten better this year. One of the things i did was get more involved in the matches, setting up, and officiating. Both gave me confidence on how the game is played.

Recently I have been aware of the front sight from the first to the last shot. last match we had some farther targets to hit. I just let go. i was not apprehensive about "if" i hit them.

I knew that the sight picture was right and that the targets were far enough away that i couldn't see the 9 mm holes. I just knew that the sight picture was right, the result can not be doubted. I applied this to closer target and got great results.

This is a big step for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you allow your subconscious to "do" where does your conscious mind go? I know it has to be quiet....but mind won't shut up. That's not exactly true....it can be quiet for a little while but then it wants to take over. Is it a matter of training it to be quiet? Or is it a matter of giving it something else to do while the subconscious is in control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both actually. You train it to be quiet by giving it something to do which is to observe what is going on. Your conscious mind watches but shouldn't comment...this is definitely one of those zen things...because as soon as you think a comment, the switch flips and you go from doing to thinking. Thinking generally leads to trying to control. When I'm thinking, I'm stinking. Got to turn it loose and not get suckered into telling your subconscious what to do while shooting. It'll know what to do and when to do it since you already asked it to do it during the walk thru.

Ever shot a plate rack and long about the fourth hit you find your mind saying "wow, I'm hitting the plates" and then suddenly since you are no longer just watching, you miss the fifth shot? You can learn to ignore and not invest in those thoughts when they pop up by doing some quiet sitting. Without going into all the myriad of meditation styles, think of it in this metaphor: your thoughts are like leaves floating in a stream, you can watch them go by without having to pick up and examine each leaf. Count your breaths and as soon as you find yourself thinking, let go of the thought and go back to counting. Soon enough you won't need to count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both actually. You train it to be quiet by giving it something to do which is to observe what is going on. Your conscious mind watches but shouldn't comment...this is definitely one of those zen things...because as soon as you think a comment, the switch flips and you go from doing to thinking. Thinking generally leads to trying to control.

Nicely said Carina.

be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just ran into this reading an article in Britannica about learning and thought it belonged here:

Phenomena of psychomotor learning > Refractory period and anticipation

When required to make quick, discrete responses to two stimuli separated in time by one-half second or less, an operator's reaction time (latency) for executing the second response is typically longer than that of his first response. This difference in reaction time is called the psychological refractory period. At one time, it was thought possible that sensory feedback from the first response might stack up in the nerve centres to make the system refractory for a brief time, thereby delaying the processing of the second stimulus. Research findings that erroneous reactions could be corrected within one-tenth second would seem to negate the hypothesis. An alternative suggestion is that corrective movements are facilitated by feedback from the incorrect ones, and controlled observations appear to confirm that error-correcting responses have shorter latencies than those that are either correct or erroneous. Apparently, a false movement can be stopped on the basis of internal cues more promptly than on that of external stimuli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Apparently, a false movement can be stopped on the basis of internal cues more promptly than on that of external stimuli.

I don't understand this sentence.

Yes, this thread does indeed kick ass. This is the thread I have been hoping for ever since I joined this web site seven years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on that, and the whole point of the paragraph that Dale brought us, is that we are getting more feedback than we consciously realize.

Our shooting is very vision-driven. Yet, we have other senses. I am sure that everybody that has shot much has done something where they aren't sure what they saw...but they just know that something didn't feel right.

There was a recent thread where a study suggested that we (our minds) might be pre-building what we are going to see...to do high speed things like hit a moving ball with a bat or racket. How would our minds do so? The idea there suggests (to me) that our minds are projecting near-future occurrences by computing the data/information that is currently available to us.

There is another recent thread that is a link to a game. People are posting their reaction times from playing that game. I haven't tried that one, but I know about where my reaction time is from similar games we've played in the past...and from testing it a bit on the range with a timer (gun on target, trigger prepped...at the beep, break the shot).

I know that I have noticed...and made up...misses at 10y and beyond with splits that were 0.17s (which is about as fast as my splits ever tend to go in a match anyway). How can I make up a shot with a split that fast...there is no time built in there for reaction time from reading the sights? If I can normally shoot a .17 split on a target, then my make-up shot (one might think) would be that .17 + reaction time.

My mental computer must be processing information in the background. Likely internal and external information (I would assume).

I'll bet our mind has it's own spy network. With spies on the inside and outside. And all this spy information gets dumped into a big computer that is always running.

This information collection and processing unit (mind and sense) can tell us how to do things...if we let it. We can drive a car down the inter-state at high speed without too much problem. The mind has likely figured out what it needs to do that, and we usually don't get in the way.

When we are aware, we observe some of this process.

We might not need to know how it works, but we can learn to trust it. If we understand the trust...

That's my 2? senses worth <<< (good pun?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we understand the trust...

But is it really necessary that we understand the trust? Is it really necessary that we understand what just happened? Does that not just insert the conscious mind into something that happened subconsciously - that was only even possible because it happened subconsciously? Is this not the overbearing conscious mind, which can't stand to be ignored, when something goes right jumping in and saying, "Let me give MY invaluable take on what just happened," in the process corrupting the experience? Would we not be better to NOT try to understand what just happened, and simply trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its necessary to understand the trust..but at least train your mind to not be afraid and not doubt that trust. that's when you start second guessing and execution gets bogged down.

I think your conscious mind needs to be along for the ride to deal with unexpected dangers...(exp. last night we had a shooter get tangled up in a rope and go to the ground..but he was able deal with in a safe and quick manner.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that maybe another way to look at the "Trust" thing is that you must have a certain level of SELF CONFIDENCE before you can "Trust" yourself to run on "Autopilot"...For ME, I MUST be absolutely confident in my equipment--that it is RELIABLE, and that it will "Shoot Where I Look" if I execute the shot correctly...I MUST be absolutely confident in my shooting ability--that I have the FUNDAMENTALS ingrained to the point that I CAN execute the shot, no matter HOW DIFFICULT, and...I MUST be absolutely confident in my ability to execute the shot UNDER STRESS...Only THEN am I able to let the Subconscious take over and let the Conscious "Be Quiet"...Simple, really...NOT!!!...but that is what I MUST HAVE...YMMV....mikey357

Edited by mikey357
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a recent thread where a study suggested that we (our minds) might be pre-building what we are going to see...to do high speed things like hit a moving ball with a bat or racket. How would our minds do so? The idea there suggests (to me) that our minds are projecting near-future occurrences by computing the data/information that is currently available to us.

That sounds an awful lot like a description of modern tracking autofocus --- where the CPUs in the camera are receiving constant feedback on target position, direction, speed, while focus tracking; data that the camera then uses when the photographer holds the button down for a burst of images to predict where the target will be when the shutter opens. Once the photographer hits the trigger for a burst, the camera's CPUs are no longer getting as much data as before, because there's a mirror flipping through the visual information pathway.

I've noticed that I have a hard time shooting flying clays --- because I want to track them like a photographer would, rather than working on leading them and trusting my brain to figure out a way to deliver the load of shot to the appropriate place at the right time....

I know that I have noticed...and made up...misses at 10y and beyond with splits that were 0.17s (which is about as fast as my splits ever tend to go in a match anyway). How can I make up a shot with a split that fast...there is no time built in there for reaction time from reading the sights? If I can normally shoot a .17 split on a target, then my make-up shot (one might think) would be that .17 + reaction time.

My mental computer must be processing information in the background. Likely internal and external information (I would assume).

I'm pretty sure that you're used to thinking that your mental function is slow --- because for functions like adding a string of numbers, calculating a tip percentage, or a drip factor it may be quite slow compared to a calculator or computer. If you're thinking that though --- it's based on conscious perception. I'm betting that you're also aware --- from that .17 split, from avoiding a traffic accident with a sudden move, from catching something you dropped --- that it's not the CPU that's slow, it's the processing of what you just saw or heard or felt. That may also be why it takes people a while to process stressful, traumatic or very detailed and complicated events, because you're trying to consciously think it through and build memories, instead of just going with the perceptions as they occur.

In a way the very best runs are very boring --- because you're not doing a lot of thinking, but you are doing a lot of perceiving....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we understand the trust...

But is it really necessary that we understand the trust? Is it really necessary that we understand what just happened? Does that not just insert the conscious mind into something that happened subconsciously - that was only even possible because it happened subconsciously? Is this not the overbearing conscious mind, which can't stand to be ignored, when something goes right jumping in and saying, "Let me give MY invaluable take on what just happened," in the process corrupting the experience? Would we not be better to NOT try to understand what just happened, and simply trust?

That makes sense, once one has reached the level mikey357 described. There's no point to trusting if you're not completely doubt-free.

Trusting, and what went on "during the trusting" are two different things.

At times, you may learn from investigating and understanding what "what happened during the trusting." You may discover realms in which you really didn't trust completely. Or you may not be able to recall anything specific regarding something that happened impeccably. Which will feed the power to trust.

be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
There was a recent thread where a study suggested that we (our minds) might be pre-building what we are going to see...to do high speed things like hit a moving ball with a bat or racket. How would our minds do so? The idea there suggests (to me) that our minds are projecting near-future occurrences by computing the data/information that is currently available to us.

I posted that one in the Zen section. The idea is that, since it takes time for your nervous system to translate light that hits your retina into sensory input, you brain will project where the object "should be" in relation to the delay. This goes along with the persistence of vision effect, which makes 24 frame per second video seem smooth. Also from Wikipedia:

A critical part of understanding these visual perception phenomena is that the eye is not a camera: there is no "frame rate" or "scan rate" in the eye: instead, the eye/brain system has a combination of [b]motion detectors[/b], detail detectors and pattern detectors, the outputs of all of which are combined to create the visual experience.

So the human eye has sensors for detecting motion; these help the brain decide how to "map" moving object through the field of vision.

I know that I have noticed...and made up...misses at 10y and beyond with splits that were 0.17s (which is about as fast as my splits ever tend to go in a match anyway). How can I make up a shot with a split that fast...there is no time built in there for reaction time from reading the sights? If I can normally shoot a .17 split on a target, then my make-up shot (one might think) would be that .17 + reaction time.

Maybe you knew that the shot was going to break wrong before it broke?

To me, the difference between knowing and thinking is that knowing does not require any external validation. I you know something, you don't need to spend time validating it. No other sensory input is required.

FWIW, I did some slide-lock reload practice yesterday, without even having gear on. I just stuck a mag in my belt and went at it. I "tried" to go fast, and failed miserably. With no magwell, whenever the mag was slightly out of aligment with the gun, the mag hung up. Then I said to myself, "I'm going to put the mag in the gun when I know that it will line up right, by seeing it." Didn't care about speed. The difference was amazing. Hitting those reloads smooth every time. Was it "fast"? It was a lot faster than having the make hang up on the gun. This got me thinking that, if I break down my shooting into a series of actions based on what I know, from seeing, then I will be shooting to the best of my ability. This is opposite from how I approached my practice session initially, which was expecting a certain outcome (desire). Then it occurred to me that desire for a specific outcome requires external validation through other sensory input than was necessary to shoot a stage. If I shoot with desire for a certain outcome, then I don't know my shooting.

Take it FWIW, from a sharpshooter in IDPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...