____

TSC's

"Runs With Scissors"

a Blog ....... sort of

Blog Home Gear ArchivedArticles Links

Sorry - Shortly after starting this I discovered what I already knew. You can't separate techniques from tactics! Since I don't want my tactics used against me, or a good guy, this now goes 'off the grid'. If you're interested in how I plan to play at night - contact me and I'll show you how to access more details. If I don't know you be prepared for a NO but thanks for asking. If you're still interested you'll need to convince me.

Blog Home Gear ArchivedArticles Links

** The 'Blog' starts here **

Well...much will be good ideas I've run across and saved.

Every effort will be made to credit those who deserve it (good & bad)

4/26/10 (eval your techniques)

WILL IT WORK? EVALUATING A TECHNIQUE
by; Gabe Suarez

(if you don't get his e-mail updates you're missing out)

In america we have something called "freedom of speech". Anyone can speak their mind...at least in theory. This is a good thing of course because in other places around the world one cannot. In matters of politics and of faith and even in esoteric matters such as how to cook chili, everyone's opinions may have equal value. However, that does not extend to everything, even if we think it does. Of course, what we are discussing here is the issue of techniques and methods for use in personal combat. Today, anyone with a computer can pen their deep thoughts and most advanced techniques almost as fast as they occur to them.

What is a true seeker of truth to do? How does such a student separate the good techniques from the bad...the useful from the unworkable? Here is a simple way to do that.

First one must consider what their physical and mental state is likely to be in a true life and death gunfight. Unless you have been in multiple life and death fights you really don't know, so you will have to ask those who have such knowledge. In addition to that you need to test yourself in the uncomfortable and stressful world of force on force. When you do that, you wil realize that your view of the gunfight will be vastly different than what the range instructors, internet pundits, and keyboard ninjas have told you. But you will also know far more about winning a gunfight than thery ever will.

It is important to understand that physical state because if a technique will not work at such times, it truly is a waste of time to even train it. You cannot train nature out of your system. Many have tried to do that through history but when true stress comes up nad grabs you by the balls you will do what nature has programmed you to do. So here is the litmus test for techniques, concepts, and training -

1). A method must work with the human being's natural tendencies. A superior technique will be enhanced and supported by natural tendencies and not degraded by them. As one example, it is a natural tendency to crouch and load the legs for movement when startled. Thus a technique that supports that tendency and is actually enhanced by the natural reaction is superior to a method that seeks to negate the natural inclinatons. Thus a "Take Off" style movement (of any origin) would be a more natural reaction to being shot at than a Weaver Stance.

2). Methods should utilize gross motor skills far more than rely on manual dexterity. Again, recall the physical state likely in a life and death struggle. A warmed up shooter can do all manner of superhuman magic tricks with his guns in a match, or on the range, that boggles the mind. But bring him out cold one day and have him believe that if he doesn't do it right he and his entire family will die a horrible death and see what happens. I will bet the mental reaction to that, and the resulting physical manifestations, will not support Houdini gun handling.

3). Methods should seek to reduce risk of failure while achieving the desired results. For example, the goal is to knock out the adversary. That could be accomplished by a right cross with a high chance of success, or with a far more flashy and risky high roundhouse kick to the head. Which one reduces the chance of failure? Looking at the use of a pistol and applying the concept - one can use the small slide lock lever on a Glock to release the slide on a reload, or grab the slide over the top? Which one is closer to a 100% guarantee?

4). Methods must be easy to "own" and to maintain. There are only so many hours in the day and few can spend all of it training. Thus techniques that require excessive amounts of repetitions to "own" or excessive amounts of training to maintain are perhaps not the best choices. That is not to say we want only mediocre methods. To the contrary, think of what a high level of performance if we had fewer techniques to learn and maintain. A study of period sword forms intended for cutting down men compared to showmanship forms of today intended to impress men will illustrate this point very well.

5). Finally, once a method is chosen, learned, and develope vis-a-vis training, it needs to be pressure tested in force of force drills so that you know in your heart and soul without any doubt that this will in fact work for you.

4/23/10 (hit or myth revisited)

Good reminders of how wimpy carryable guns can be (including rifles). I don't necessarily buy the caliber parts but the main points are good reminders;

The "Center Mass" Myth and Ending a Gunfight

By Jim Higginbotham

Surviving a gunfight isn't what you think it is. Don’t let conventional wisdom get you killed. A well place round to "center mass" in your attacker may not take him out of the fight. Lots of people stay in the fight after "center mass" hits, and some even win it. If you expect to win your gunfight, you have to make sure that you have effectively ended the threat of your attacker. One, two or even several well placed "center mass" shots may not do what you think it will, and learning to recognize this before you gunfight may save your life.

There is a self styled self defense “expert” under every rock, and perhaps two behind every bush, these days. If you have a pet theory on what might work on the street then you can probably find a champion for that idea who actually charges people to teach them that skill. But few of the experts out there have ever been in gunfights, and even fewer have studied real gunfights to see how things really work out when the bullets really fly for blood.

There are more misconceptions out there than I can cover in one article but the one that probably gets to me the most, even over all the caliber wars that rage interminably in the print and cyber media, is the nearly universal acceptance that shooting a miscreant “center mass” with ________(fill in your favorite make, model and caliber) shooting _________ (fill in your favorite ammunition) hyper speed truck killer is practically guaranteed to get the job done.

Having studied in this field from a number of decades, I have run into plenty of cases where bullets did not do what folks would have assumed. And I have now collected enough of these that I think that rather than being anomalies, they are actually closer to the norm. Center mass hits in a gunfight do not in most cases end the fight. Erroneous assumptions can get you killed!

There is a well known video in training circles in which a Highway Patrol officer shoots an armed subject 5 times “center mass” (this is not my assessment but the statement of his immediate supervisors which are interviewed on the full version of the hour long tape) with his 4” .357 Magnum revolver firing hollow point ammunition. All 5 hits failed to do the job and the subject was able to fire one round which struck the officer in the armpit. That round wondered around in the chest cavity and found his heart. The officer unfortunately died at the scene and his attacker is alive today.

In a class I conduct under the title "Fire For Effect" I start out by showing a video of standoff in which a hostage taker is fired on by police with .223 rifles and .40 caliber handguns. Throughout the whole disturbing sequence, which lasts about 10 seconds, the bad guy is hit multiple times in the torso with both rifle and pistol rounds. You can see him place his non-firing hand to his chest, clearly a lung is hit. However he is able to shoot his hostage 3 times, not rapidly. The hostage, a trim female, is active throughout the scene but later died from her wounds. In this case both the attacker and the victim had “center mass” hits that had no immediate effect.

I have accumulated confirmed incidents in which people have been shot “center mass” up to 55 times with 9mm JHP ammunition (the subject was hit 106 times, but 55 of those hits were ruled by the coroner to be each lethal in and of themselves) before he went down. During training at the FBI Academy we were told of a case in which agents shot a bank robber 65 times with 9mm, .223 and 00 buckshot – he survived! These are not rare cases. The happen quite often.

If a gunfight ever comes your way, your attacker may fall to a hit to the liver and he may not. He may fall to two or three hits to the kidneys, intestines or spleen, but he may not. He will certainly be in bad health. He likely will not survive, but what he does for the next several seconds to a few minutes is not guaranteed because you hit him "center mass."

Heart and lung hits don't statistically fare much better. I have three students and three other acquaintances who were all shot in a lung at the outset of gunfights. The students came to me after their fights to learn how to keep from getting shot again. Last time I checked all of those people were still alive and the people who shot them are still dead. Every one of them was able to respond effectively after being shot “center mass”, one might even say they were shot in the “A-zone”. And they were shot with .38 Special (three of them), 9mm, .357 Magnum and 8mm Mauser, so it's not all about caliber. One of those was a Chicom 12.7 mm round! He lived next door to me for many years.

So, what’s a person to do? First off, realize that one shot, even a fairly well placed shot may not do the job so don’t set there and admire your handiwork or wait for it to take effect. But even two hits may not get the job done!

After years of trying to get a grasp on this I have come to look at the results of shooting a living breathing target – be it a human attacker or a game animal – as falling into 3 or 4 categories. They are :

Instant Collapse – this takes place 1 to 2 seconds from the shot being fired

Rapid Collapse – this can take from 3 to 15 seconds and is quite common.

Marginal Effect – this can even be a lethal hit but it takes from 15 to 300 (yes 300!) or even more seconds.

The 4th is simply unacceptable and is a total failure.

The last category we don’t like to discuss but happens too often . We saw it recently in Washington with a Center Mass hit from an officer’s pistol and the subject was still walking around the next day.

What is “effective” shooting? Sad to say, it is demanding. It is also, I think, variable depending on the conditions. For example, the robber armed with a scattergun who is standing 10 feet away must be stopped “right now!” If you do not bring about Instant Collapse someone may very well die…that someone may be you!

On the other hand, if there is a gang banger launching bullets in your general direction using un-aimed fire about 20 yards away then a hit that brings about Rapid Collapse might do the job.

I cannot imagine a Marginally Effective result being very desirable in any case, but it does buy you some time in some cases.

How does this relate to hits? In order to achieve Instant Collapse you must scramble the “circuitry” that keeps the bad guy on the attack. That means the brain or spinal cord.

The head is not only a fairly difficult target to hit in the real world – because it moves a lot – but it is also difficult to penetrate and get a pistol bullet into the place it must be to be effective. For normal purposes we might write off the head, keeping it in reserve for very special circumstances.

The spine is not that easy to hit either. It isn't large, and to be effective the hit needs to be in the upper 1/3 of the spine or at a point about level with the tip of the sternum. I think that is around T11. But of course the huge problem is that it is hidden by the rest of the body. We are the good guys, we don’t go around shooting people in the back. So the exact location is something that can only be learned through lots of practice on 3D targets. Your point of aim on the surface changes with the angle at which the target is facing.

The bottom of the spine isn't much use. I know of several people shot in the pelvis. It did not break them down as many theorize. I am not saying it doesn’t happen but in the only case I know of in which it did the person who was “anchored” with a .357 magnum to the pelvis killed the person that shot him – you can shoot just fine from prone.

A shot, or preferably multiple shots to the heart and major arteries above the heart (not below!) may achieve Rapid Collapse, but not always. Officer Stacy Lim was shot in the heart at contact distance with a .357 Magnum and is still alive and her attacker is still dead! Score one for the good guys…or in this case gals!

So now what constitutes Marginal Effectiveness? A hit to the lungs! Even multiple hits to the lungs. Unfortunately though, most often lung hits are effective in ending the fight because the subject decides to quit the fight, not because he MUST. A famous Colonel Louis LeGarde once wrote what is considered "the" book on gunshot wounds. 65% of his patients shot through the lungs – with rifles! – survived with the predominant treatment being only bed rest!

Effective Practice and "Dynamic Response"

The goal of practice, one would think, is to make correct, effective shooting techniques a matter of reflex, so that you don't have to think about what you are doing in a gunfight.

Most people will perform under stress at about 50 to 60% as well as they do on the range…and that is if they practice a lot! If they only go to the range once every other month that performance level decreases dramatically. Shooting and weapons handling are very perishable skills. Also folks tend to practice the wrong stuff inadvertently. I put this in the classification of “practicing getting killed” but that too is a topic for another day.

Movement and Variation doesen't mean

innacurate shooting. In a real gunfight you and

your adversary will most likely

be moving. Click here if you can't see the video.

Let’s talks about a basic response, what I call "Dynamic Response." Situations vary and this is not meant to be a universal answer, just one that will work for about 80% of scenarios.

It is pointless to stand still on the range and shoot a stationary target, unless you simply want to polish up some marksmanship fundamentals. That is a necessary part of learning to shoot. But if you are practicing for a fight, then fight!

Some rules.

Don’t go to the range without a covering garment – unless of course you always carry your gun exposed (no comment).

Don’t practice drawing your gun fast – ever! – while standing still.

Part of the Dynamic Response is to step off the line of attack (or on rare occasions that are dependent on circumstances backwards or forwards) and present the weapon with as much alacrity as you can muster and engage the target with overwhelming and accurate fire! By the way, never assume a fight is completely over just because you canceled one threat. Don’t practice “standing down” too quickly. We have a video attached which will hopefully give you the right idea.

I wish there was a formula of how to stand and how to hold you gun but there really isn't. We don’t do “Weaver vs. Isosceles vs. Modern Iso vs. whatever”. We don’t do “Thumbs Crossed vs. Thumbs Forward vs. Thumb Up…never mind.” Those are things for you to work out on your own. You use what makes YOU effective not what works for a guy who practices 50,000 rounds the week before a big match (that is not an exaggeration). Competitive shooters will throw out advice on what works for them. It may not work for you.

There is also not “one true gun”. Your skill is far more important that what you carry, within reason. We are not really talking about “stopping power”, whatever that is, here but rather effectiveness.

I can find no real measure – referred to by some as a mathematical model – of stopping power or effectiveness. And I have looked for 44 years now! Generally speaking I do see that bigger holes (in the right place) are more effective than smaller holes but the easy answer to that is just to shoot your smaller gun more – “a big shot is just a little shot that kept shooting”. True, I carry a .45 but that is because I am lazy and want to shoot less. A good bullet in 9mm in the right place (the spine!) will get the job done. If you hit the heart, 3 or 4 expanded 9mms will do about what a .45 expanding bullet will do or one might equal .45 ball….IF (note the big if) it penetrates. That is not based on any formula, it is based on what I have found to happen – sometimes real life does not make sense.

Practicing Dynamic Response means practicing with an open mind. Circumstances in a real gunfight are unpredictable and the more unpredictability you mix up into your practice the more your brain will be preparing itself for a possible real gunfight.

In real life, your gunfight may be dark, cold, rainy, etc. The subject may be anorexic (a lot of bad guys are not very healthy) or he may be obese (effective penetration and stopping power of your weapon). There are dozens of modifiers which change the circumstance, most not under your control. My only advice on this is what I learned from an old tanker: “Shoot until the target changes shape or catches fire!” Vertical to horizontal is a shape change, and putting that one more round into his chest at point blank range may catch his clothes on fire, even without using black powder.

We tell our military folks to be prepared to hit an enemy fighter from 3-7 times with 5.56 ball, traveling at over 3,000 feet per second. This approach sometimes worked, but I know of several cases where it has not, even "center mass."

With handguns, and with expanding bullets, it is even more unpredictable, but through years of study I have developed a general formula, subject to the above mentioned unpredictable circumstances.

2-3 hits with a .45

4-6 with a .40

5-8 with a 9mm

With a revolver, the rounds are not necessarily more effective but I would practice shooting 3 in a .38 or .357 merely because I want 3 left for other threats. Not that those next three won’t follow quickly if the target hasn’t changed shape around my front sight blade. A .41, .44 or .45 Colt I would probably drop to two. Once again, they are not that much more effective than a .45 Auto but I don’t have the bullets to waste.

In any case, I want to stress the part that it is more about how you shoot than what you shoot, within reason. It is also more about the mindset and condition of the subject you are shooting which is not under your control. Take control – buy good bullets and put them where they count the most! And remember “anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting a whole lot!” (but please stop when the threat is cancelled, we don’t advocate “finishing shots”).

Gunfights are ugly things. I don't like to talk about the blood and guts aspects of defending life any more than the next guy. But it is our lives we are talking about here. By researching how gunfights are fought, and more importantly, how gunfights are won, it may give both of us the edge if a gunfight ever comes our way. I hope to cover many of the points I have learned and learned to train others in over the coming months. It isn't as easy to write about it as it is to teach it in person, but you can only succeed if you are willing to try.

I hope you enjoy the ride.

Press on!

Jim

4/18/10 (attack inicators)

Darren Laur “Ritualized Combat”

Ritualized Combat was termed by a police trainer by the name of Roland Ouellette. Basically, these "body language signs" are rituals that the human body will, in most cases, go through just prior, during, and after a physical confrontation ( not so different from the animal kingdom). These signs are important, why?, because they are really good warning signals to let you know what your potential attacker may be contemplating, even though he may not be “verbally” communicating this fact to you. Ritualized Combative signs have been both scientifically and empirically researched in such fields as “Human Performance” and “Neuro Linguistic Psychology.” Here in Canada, I have used “Ritualized Combative Signs” successfully in the Courts during expert testimony in Self-Defense cases. I also possess hundreds of hours of videotape of actual street fights, and when reviewed both in real time and in slow motion, everyone of the Ritualized Combative signs that I share in my articles and training, are seen prior, during, and after these fights. This is why I believe that all in the self-protection field should know about “Ritualized Combat”. So what are these signs?

Assault Not Imminent But Possible:

- Head, neck, shoulders go back (person making themselves look bigger)

- Face is red, twitching, jerking

- Lips pushed forward bearing teeth (you see the same things in dogs before attack)

- Breathing is fast and shallow (oxygenating the body preparing for fight, flight, hyper vigilance)

- Beads of sweat appear about the face/neck

- Thousand mile glare

- Exaggerated movements

- Finger pointing/ head pecking

- Totally ignores you

- Gives you excessive attention during normal conversation such as direct uninterrupted eye contact

- Goes from totally un-cooperative to totally cooperative ( people do not go from hot to cold they de-escalate over time)

- Acts stoned or drunk

- Directs anger towards other inanimate items such as tables, chairs, walls

If you find yourself confronted by a subject presenting these signs, awareness/self protection strategies should go up, and distance should be created. Your body language should be assertive but not threatening and don’t be afraid to allow the person to vent verbally.

Assault Is Imminent:

- face goes from red to white ( during a physical confrontation the blood will leave the surface of the body and pool to the big muscles and internal organs of the body needed for survival) In my job as a police officer I see this all the time and when I do one of two things are going to happen, the suspect is either going to fight or run

- Lips tighten over teeth

- Breathing is fast and deep

- Change of stance, their body blades and shoulder drops

- Hands closed into a fist (not uncommon to see the whites of knuckles due to hands being so tight)

- Bobbing up and down or rocking back and forth on feet (this is the bodies way to hide/ mask the initial movement of a first strike)

- Target glace (here you will see your opponent look to where he is going to hit, or where he is going to run/escape)

- Putting head and shin down (body wants to protect the airway, this action does so to a degree)

- Eye brows brought forward into a frown( again the body wants to naturally protect the visual system, this action does so to a degree)

- Stops all movements/ freezes in place

- Dropping center or lowering of body (no different that a cat or dog getting ready to pounce)

- Shedding cloths ( very common, you will see your attacker take his hat, coat, shirt, or bag off just prior to the assault)

- One syllable replies ( go from full sentences to one syllable replies….. reptilian brain is clicking in)

In this group of signs, you have about 1-1.5 seconds to act before your attacker either attacks or runs. If walking and talking your way out is inappropriate or unreasonable, then I teach “First Strike” philosophy, and continue on with a compound attack until your attacker is no longer a risk.

In both the Assault not Imminent and Assault Imminent phases, I do teach my students ( in some situations) to bring to the attention of the attacker what they are seeing why:

1) The attacker may not know what they are doing. A lot of these signs are autonomic in nature, meaning they happen without conscious thought.

2) The bigger reason, I believe, is for this purpose; most attackers will only attack you when they believe that they have the element of surprise. By sharing with them what you see, you take this primary tactic away from them.

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU SHOULD NOT LET THE PERSON KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SEEING, THUS USING THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!!!!!!!!!!

If you have been able to deescalate the situation you have found yourself in, non-verbally, verbally or physically, also look for these Ritualized Combat signs that are good indicators to let you know that your opponent is no longer thinking about fighting:

Signs Of Submission:

- Putting hands up in front of body with palms facing out…. ( universal sign for stop stay back)

- Face returns to normal skin tone and color

- shaking hand. (almost as if the person has Alzheimer’s disease…. This shaking can be slight to extreme ….. bodies natural way to burn out the adrenalin, nor-adrenalin, epinephrine that it dumped into the body for fight, flight, hypervigilance but was not used)

- turning of back with their hands covering their head ( ensure you can see their hands if not create distance NOW)

- backing off

- bowing of head and lowering of eyes

- verbal tone, volume, rate, slows back to normal / full sentences once again

- falling to the ground almost in a fetal position

- grooming gestures ( this one is weird but you will see it time and time again… person will adjust their clothing, play with their hair/mustache/beard, pick lint of their body….. you see this in cat and dogs after they fight and then groom themselves)

In all of the above noted signs, don’t just look for one, but rather clusters of two or more. If you see one and know what to look for, you will see others guaranteed. As a police officer who has been involved in many physical encounters, I can share with you and others that “Ritualized Combat” is a tool that you can use to your advantage. Many of my students , who are not police officers, who have found themselves in ‘situations” have also echoed the tactical benefit of such knowledge. One should also remember that a skilled attacker “may” be able to mask some of these signs, so never drop you guard and fall into a false sense of confidence !!!!!! Also remember that if the voice and body don’t match, always believe the body because the voice can LIE !!!!!! If your attacker is verbalizing the fact that he doesn’t want to fight, but yet he is showing Ritualized Combative signs that show otherwise, he’s a LLPOF ( liar, liar pants on fire)

Some people who don’t know about Ritualized Combat, call it “gut instinct/intuition” They are right !!!!!! The reason it is a “gut instinct/intuition” rather than a known empirical thing, is because no one has explained to them what “Ritualized Combat” is. What is happening in the “gut/ instinct” group, is that their “sub-conscious/reptilian brain” is picking up on these signs (rather than the conscious critical mind), thus turning on the warning bells. Some listen (the more experience), but most do not. Why can I say this, I am also a certified hypnotherapist and working towards my masters in Neuro Linguistic Psychology.

Considering the amount of knowledge out there, are there any other Ritualized Combative signs, that can be added to one of these three categories ?

Knowledge and the understanding of that knowledge is power !!!!

3/25/10 (low light)

Fundamentals of Fighting in Low-Light Environments

Roger Phillips - Suarez International Staff

In my humble opinion, the basic concept for fighting at night is that "darkness is your friend." If you are in the dark, stay in the dark. If you are in the light, light up the dark. Night vision would be of the utmost importance in this concept. As we age, our night vision may be negatively affected by the aging process. It is very important that you know your night vision limitations and that you tailor your tactics to your specific circumstance. Older eyes may also affect your ability to use night sights, keep this in mind and know your limitations.

The eyes are made up or numerous sensitive nerves called cones and rods. The cones are at the center of the retina and are best used for direct vision during lighted situations. They detect color, detail, and far away objects. The rods encircle the cones are best for peripheral vision, movement and low light situations. In low-light it is best to not use direct vision, but to use your peripheral vision in a slow sweeping manner to pick up shape, silhouette, and movement. Look just "off of center" to get the most out of your night vision.

Obtaining your maximum night vision takes nearly thirty minutes, but it can be lost in the blink of an eye. After approximately 5 to10 minutes, the cones become adjusted to the dim light and the eyes become 100 times more sensitive to the light than they were before. Nearly 30 minutes is needed for the rods to become adjusted to darkness, but when they do adjust they are about 100,000 times more sensitive to light than they were in lighted areas. After the adaptation process is complete, much more can be seen, especially if the eyes are used correctly. If you have achieved your maximum night vision, protect it as much as possible. One trick to preserve night vision (if you have no choice but to go into the light that will negatively affect your night vision,) is to close your dominant shooting eye and protect your night vision in one of your eyes. The temporary blinding affect of having your night vision suddenly taken from you can cause illusions, after images, vertigo, dizziness, and loss of balance. This is something that needs to be known to understand how important protecting your night vision is. In a fast pace, chaotic, self defense situation, dealing with any of these negative factors could be the difference between victory and defeat. But on the other hand, this is a double edge sword and can be used to your advantage against you adversary.

In most urban environments there will be ambient light sources, some brighter than others. As you are working these irregular brightness levels, keep in mind the preservation of your night vision and the use of darkness and shadows in this regard and as a form of concealment. Your movement should be dictated (in part) by theses simple concepts. The three rules of camouflage are very important here. The understanding that they are double edged swords that work both ways is absolutely vital. The three rules are Shine, Shape, and Silhouette. These rules must be understood from the aspect of both the predator and the prey. Tactics such as "keeping low" and using the horizon or ambient light sources to back light the adversary’s silhouette are crucial. You also need to remember that the adversary "in the know" will be trying to do the same thing to you. You should try to use this tactical advantage to benefit yourself, while at the same time mitigate the chances of it being used to your detriment. This may require you to look/search lower than you would during lighted situations. You may want to start your looking/searching at about knee level first before you raise your search level. While it is important to look/search at all levels during lighted situations, keep in mind that a lower search levels are even more important during low light situations. Other tactics such as the use of your hearing can be a real asset, while working in the dark, do not under estimate the tactic of just stopping and listening.

Shooting in low-light/ambient light

As in anything that we do in regards to self defense, there is a continuum/progression/matrix of fighting at night. IMHO this continuum is even more prevalent and important in the dark. In my basic philosophy of "react as you need to react, see what you need to see, and move as you need to move," the continuum is very clear. In the dark it is even more pronounced due to the loss of visual input. The lessening of visual input negatively affects all three parts of that basic philosophy. In the reaction phase, you absolutely need the visual input to understand the situation. Awareness and threat identification are both compromised in the dark. The reaction to these two things, in turn is also compromised. On the necessary visual input, this is pretty self explanatory. Ever aspect of this concept is affected in low-light due to your ability to not see as well. On the necessary movement, I have found that all of the movement is toned down due to the "safety considerations." Since you are not able to see the terrain/footing as well, there is the huge desire to not go down. The balance shifts slightly towards insuring the hit and slightly away from "not getting hit." I do not see this as a problem because once again we are talking about a double edge sword that both combatants are dealing with.

On pure marksmanship in low-light, the necessary visual input is affected all along the sight continuum due to the loss of light. Your limitations on each sighting technique may be affected by the loss of visual input due to darkness. Since absolute knowledge of your limitations is in direct relationship to your confidence, knowing your limitations at each lighting level is extremely important. Confidence is important due to the fact that there will be even less visual verification that your hits are good. Your ability to see the hits or call your shots will be severely hampered. Therefore you must have absolute knowledge of your limitations. Although, you can use the muzzle flash for hit verification, this is not really a sighting aid...it is an aid for verification or calling your shots. If your muzzle flash is centered on the targeted area, and the silhouette of the gun is centered inside of the muzzle flash (very much like metal and meat) you are getting the hits. This verification could be key, especially it the adversary is wearing body armor. If you have absolute knowledge of good hits and there is not the desired affect, you can transition to the head quicker for the fight ending shot.

In my teachings, situations dictate tactics and tactics dictate techniques. I teach my students the exact same necessary visual input techniques at night as I do during the day. It is up to the student which tools they prefer for each specific situation. But I believe that in low-light situations that you should always get as much visual input as you can, for the situation you are faced with. Obviously, this may not be the best solution during the day. In low-light there is a definite need to examine the balance between speed (of the drawstroke, movement, and trigger) and accuracy. This balance may not be the same as the day due to less visual input due to darkness.

The Floating Light

I prefer to only use a flashlight only when I absolutely need to use the light. But there are times when it is absolutely necessary, so these tools should be in your skill set. Some of you may have recognized that I am into fluid transitions between skill sets that are dependent upon the situation. I do not see these transitions as being overly complicated or complex. To me, they fit into the KISS principle, but more importantly, they cover all of my bases. Keeping it simple is important, but I see being well rounded and versatile as being just as important. My basic concept for the flashlight is the versatility of what I call the floating light. I really do not have a default flashlight technique. My technique is all situationally dependent. The positions that I use flows from one to another seamlessly, giving me the best tool to use on each job. The positions that are incorporated into my system are the FBI, modified FBI, neck index, centerline index (SNarc), and the Modified Harries (Gabe.) They all have there place and I transition through them as situations arise. I tend to keep my handgun in a one handed compressed ready. This gives me a good retention position, one that I can fire from immediately, and a position that I can shoot accurately through out my extension.

I like the FBI and its modified positions for searching in large areas, due to the fact that a light source is a bullet magnet. These techniques keep the light source away from the body. If someone is to shoot at the light the chances of a solid hit are reduced dramatically. I really like this for searching, while incorporating "wanding and strobing." Wanding is a search technique that incorporates the old "light on/light off/move" principle with splashes of random, arching, light strokes. The random strokes give enough light to see an area to maneuver through or to identify a threat. The strokes also make it harder for an adversary to determine your position or your direction if they do not have a visual on you already. Wanding works best in large areas. I strive to never have my light on for more than two seconds. Along with that, I strive to move constantly during the "light on" portion. I try to make sure that I have used the light in a manner that lets me see what I need to see, before the light goes back off.

Strobing is random, quick, bursts of light that are manipulated in both direction and angle. Strobing is best used when you are approaching a corner or a doorway that must be taken. The concept of strobing is to use the bursts in a random pattern that makes it impossible for the adversary to know where you are or where you are going. If done correctly you can "take" the corner or make entry into the door in a manner that is much more unpredictable by your adversary. If you use the old light on/light off/move without wanding and strobing, you are telegraphing your position and your movement.

The neck index is an outstanding position. It works great with the third eye principle. As you maneuver and turret your body, your flashlight and your gun are pointed the exact same direction as your eyes. The flashlight is also in a very good position to be used as contact weapon. The horizontal elbow also works well with SNarc and Gabe’s CQB techniques; it gives some good protection to the head and facilitates good striking potential. There are good retention properties and a lot of very good options out of this position. Where this technique really shines is its use with dynamic movement. The body mechanics of the position just seems far superior to all of the other options. Of course there is the balance between making the hit and not being hit. The neck index brings the flashlight closer to your centerline and right next to your head. This could be problematic if the adversary is shooting at the light. But on the other hand the position facilitates excellent dynamic movement and accuracy. I am leaning to the fact that the dynamic movement and the accuracy outweigh the lights possible problematic position. This really gets into the fight continuum and the balance or speed and accuracy that I have mentioned prior to this.

The centerline index brings the flashlight out of the neck index and positions the flashlight on the centerline right next to the gun in the compressed ready. The exact position of the flashlight is fluid on the centerline; it can be used to the right or to the left of the gun depending on the angle of vision/lighting that is needed. This position also gives you a better field of vision than the neck index. It also brings the flashlight elbow in closer to the body, cutting down on the chances of "leading" with the elbow. As seen in SNarc's PSP this is also a very good position for taking corners and doors in conjunction with the vertical elbow.

The Modified Harries as Gabe teaches is my preferred two handed precision shooting position of this fluid system. But shots can be fire from any of the positions dependent on the situation. By simply shooting from retention, throughout your extension, or at full extension of the firing side arm, you can stay in whatever flashlight position that you choose and go at it one handed.

Be versatile, flow from one response to another, have all of your bases covered, and have the best tool for the job at your disposal.

WTS, does it make sense to be bi-lateral in your flashlight system? I believe so. Here is the flashlight transition that I use. Extend the pinky of your gun hand. Place the flashlight, bezel up, in between the pinky and the ring finger. Curl the pinky around the flashlight. Acquire the back strap of your handgun with your support side hand and transition over. Reacquire your flashlight grip.

Necessary use of the flashlight

I believe that the biggest asset of a good flashlight is in making the threat identification. Many aspect of the fight can be dealt with without the use of a flashlight, but the threat identification can be the very hardest thing to see. As in during the day, it is the hands that kill, but that is not the only thing that needs to be ID'ed. One of the most important things that one can stress in a low-light course is shoot/no-shoot situations. Of course FOF is the very best way to do this. The problem is that this type of training is not as prevalent as it should be and a full course can be a logistical nightmare due to the time limits imposed due to most people wanting to be able to sleeping at night. Often the instructors are stuck with doing the best they can on the square range. This is definitely a problem that needs to be examined and alleviated. Square range training will only take you so far, and seeing first hand the affects of a good flashlight in the eyes is an absolute necessity.

On making the threat identification with a flashlight, there are three ways to go about this if you are in a reactive gunfight. You can keep the light on, move, and engage. You can turn the light off, move, turn the light back on, and engage. You can turn the light off, move, and engage with ambient light. This will all be situationally dependent on the amount of ambient light, and the user’s skill level. If the user is dependent on a maximum amount of visual input to get the hits, they will have to use their flashlight. But, if the user needs minimal visual input, going at it in the dark can be a huge advantage.

Once again "darkness is your friend!"

3/20/10 (cover & movement)

by Skip Gochenour, longtime director of the NTI (National Tactical Invitational);

78% of people who assault police officers are intoxicated
95% of police officers who reach cover during a shooting incident are ultimately uninjured.


As a means of providing information about crisis situations, statistics are of comfort largely to statisticians who are rarely in such circumstance. Still, the point of using such statistics as John Farnam uses them is to emphasize the value of seeking cover as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

The emphasis on seeking cover is especially important in light of the traditional training techniques that use square ranges with a dozen people on the line. This training system is economically efficient. It also teaches to stand flatfooted while engaging hostile. Too many people trained using this system are shot by assailants that are much less experienced in using firearms the the defender. It is of note that those with the least amount of training are the most likely to move as the engagement begins.

Those trained in the traditional square range system that has many shooters on the line at the same time are less likely to move. The trained also are accustomed to setting up their shot on a static target. The end result is that the predator is shooting at a stationary target at arms length and the defender is anticipating a stationary target that is elsewhere as his shot breaks.

For several years now the ATSA Study Group has tested and retested a technique that regularly gives the same results. Antagonist and defender are placed at 4ft. Both are placed in a confined area 7ft by 7ft. When the assailant produces a weapon the defender steps to a 45degree angle as he produces his weapon. In variably the attacker gets off the first shot. Each time we do the test we see that 50 to 75 per cent of the time the attacker misses his first shot. If the defender continues to step to the 45, again changing the angle of attack, the attacker regularly misses on follow-up shots. Our conclusion is that even small amounts of movement that changes the geometry of the attack can be helpful.

Skip Goechenour

3/19/10 (situational awareness)

Home of the National Tactical Invitational
American Tactical Shooting Association
To view us online, visit: http://www.teddytactical.com/

Feature Article: 12-2004

Training for Situation Awareness:
What? How?

By: Jack M. Feldman, Ph.D.

Note: Born and raised in Chicago, the author received his Ph.D. in social and industrial psychology from the University of Illinois in 1972. He is a professor of psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and a Charter Fellow of the American Psychological Society. His research focuses on processes of human judgment and decision-making, both theoretical and applied. A student of self-defense since 1997, he has made up for lost time by training with a number of exceptional instructors, none of whom bears any responsibility for deficiencies in his performance. He is an active competitor and safety officer in IDPA, a charter member of the Polite Society, and an NTI participant since 2001.

Thanks to Drs. Larry James and Martin Topper for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Responsibility for any errors rests entirely with the author.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble.
It’s what you know that just ain’t so.”

Artimus Ward

The Nature of Situation Awareness

“Situation awareness” (SA) is taught, researched, and debated in every field of human activity that involves risk: aviation, combat, medicine, hazardous systems operation, law enforcement—and self-defense (see, e.g. Endsley, 1995; Endsley & Bolstad, 1994; Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Gonzalez, 2004; Marsh, 2000). It has been defined in detail (“…the perception of the elements in [one’s] environment, within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projecting of their status in the near future.” Endsley, 1995, p. 36, emphasis added.) It has also been defined simply (“…paying attention to your surroundings…” Gonzalez, 2004). However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has applied research-based knowledge to the self-defense problems of ordinary citizens. Neither has anyone tried to link more recent research on “intuitive awareness” with SA research and practice in anything but a casual way. The use (or non-use) of intuition, defined as “thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection” or “gut responses” is of major interest to law enforcement (National Institute of Justice, 2004), public safety (Klein, 1998), and medicine (King & Appleton, 1997.) Discussion of intuitive factors in self-defense, however, has been largely anecdotal (e.g. deBecker, 1997). Specifically absent has been any consideration of how to train or practice “intuition,” as separate from consciously processed lists of danger signals, for instance discussion of Cooper’s “color codes” (e.g. Givens, undated a & b). While informative, they do not tell us how to acquire or use information that may come to us, and be signaled by, processes that are nonconscious, unintentional, nonverbal, relatively effortless, fast, and that operate in parallel with conscious awareness (see, e.g., Bargh, 1994). While often labeled “instinctive,” these automatic responses are most certainly learned.

For the present, I will adopt Endsley’s (1995) definition, which supports the point that “awareness” is about understanding in the service of effective action. I assume an intimate and dynamic connection between awareness, goals, and action. Though my primary focus is on attention and comprehension, this assumption should be kept in mind. (Martin Topper, personal communication.) I also make another useful assumption: that the distinction between SA as a conscious, controlled, volitional, effortful process and “intuition” as discussed above is more apparent than real and that in fact both stem from the same sources, operating in complementary ways. This perspective, which both contrasts and unifies “controlled” and “automatic” (intuitive or implicit) processing, is fundamental to many areas of modern psychology (see Bargh, 1994; Feldman Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2002[1]).

Adopting this perspective highlights the idea that awareness need not be conscious, and indeed the capability for consciousness is not a prerequisite either for SA or for effective action. Anyone observing predators and prey (whether, say, zebras and lions or squirrels and housecats) can testify to the high level of awareness any creature must have in order to survive for any length of time. Regardless of sensory adaptation or neurological readiness, learning plays a critical role in its development. Conscious SA may provide detailed information (“There’s a man wearing a jacket standing near my car, and it’s 2 a.m. in Miami on August 10.”) Intuitive SA may provide only a feeling of apprehension, directing one’s conscious attention (see Givens, undated a & b). However, both are based on knowledge, whose structure and accessibility are crucial to its usefulness.

The Sources of Situation Awareness

There is no such thing as “awareness” in the absence of knowledge. That is, SA depends on a “mental model” (Endsley, 2000) of situations and people, a model which may or may not be fully correct. Implicit responses likewise depend on knowledge; even if that “knowledge” cannot be verbalized, it is no less systematic and no less real. It may have been learned unconsciously, or before one had language with which to express it (see, for instance, Frensch & Runger, 2003; Katkin, Wiens, and Oman, 2001), but it functions as knowledge nevertheless. Awareness is awareness of something, and what that “thing” is depends on our knowledge of the world. If our knowledge is objectively incorrect, (as in “someone so nice couldn’t be a rapist,” c.f. deBecker, 1997), our “awareness” is, too, but it is no less subjectively real.

If SA depends on either explicit or implicit knowledge, it stands to reason that the amount and structure of that knowledge matters—and it does. Expertise in any area consists of a vast amount of specific information, organized and interrelated around general principles. This is what lets the expert marksman automatically adjust the point of aim when shooting up- or downhill, without consciously reviewing the principles governing the bullet’s trajectory, while the novice is trying to remember a rule. It is what lets the chess grandmaster perceive, not analyze, patterns on the chessboard, and quickly project moves and countermoves. The very same processes allow rapid, decisive action in life-or-death situations (see, e.g., Klein, 1998) whether or not one is consciously aware of the source of one’s intuitive feeling of apprehension. In fact, it is not even necessary for emotional responses to be consciously experienced for them to influence judgments and behavior (Winkielman & Berrige, 2004). Sometimes we don’t “know” (consciously) what we know.

It is also necessary to point out, though, that “knowing,” whether conscious or not, whether emotional or verbal, is much more variable and context-dependent than it seems to be. The patterns of association that govern our interpretations of, and emotional responses to, the world can influence us to a greater or lesser degree, depending on “accessibility,” the degree to which a concept is likely to be activated and used. Accessibility, in turn, depends on a number of factors: Expertise, already discussed, involves a great deal of elaborated knowledge and considerable emotional investment. It produces high, and chronic, accessibility of relevant concepts. Ideology and value systems act likewise, with perhaps greater emotional investment. Operative motives like hunger, fear, affection, or achievement, when active, render concepts associated with them more accessible, and if the motive is chronic, the concept’s accessibility is too. Recent use of a concept (for example “danger,” caused by reading a news story about terrorism or robbery) makes it temporarily accessible, and experiencing any emotional state also makes emotionally compatible concepts temporarily accessible.

Why does this matter? Because if and when one encounters a situation that offers multiple cues as to its meaning and consequences, those that are relevant to (“diagnostic of “) our accessible concepts tend to be noticed more easily, and the situation tends to be interpreted in terms of that concept rather than another, perhaps equally valid, one. In other words, we experience the world (at least in part) in terms of that which we are ready to experience. This process is not deliberate, not open to consciousness, is controllable only with deliberate effort, and sometimes not then (for a general review, see Bargh, 1994). It happens with respect to our knowledge and our prejudices, positive or negative, alike (See, for instance, Amodio, et al., 2004; Blair, 2002; Levy, Stark, & Squire, 2004). Our “situational awareness,” then, whether implicit or explicit, depends on knowledge, values, current motives, emotional states, arousal, recent experiences, expectations, fatigue and other physical factors, and many other variables.

It is definitely true that strong signals from the environment, cues that stand out sharply from the background, can draw attention, activate motives and knowledge, thereby directing perception. However, one can miss even very prominent and unusual events happening before one’s eyes when active goals lead attention to be fixed elsewhere. Imagine paying close attention to a video of people playing with a basketball and being told later that a gorilla walked among the players—a gorilla you didn’t see. It sounds impossible, but it has happened in more than one experiment. Imagine talking to someone on the street, being momentarily distracted, and then resuming the conversation, not noticing that you’re now talking to a different person. That has happened, too. (Mack, 2003; Simon & Chabris, 1999). The first is called “inattentional blindness,” the second, “change blindness.” The good news, though, is that even without awareness of specifics, implicit processes can signal us—if we are sensitive enough to notice them (Rensink, 2004).

Situation Awareness and the Armed Citizen

Having some understanding of the nature and origin of situation awareness, we now turn to understanding its role in self-defense. Conscious SA is studied in contexts like aviation safety and military operations; intuitive or implicit SA is only beginning to be studied in domains such as medicine and law enforcement. There has been no research in the area of self-defense for the ordinary citizen. How, then, are we to evaluate and apply the knowledge we have, let alone acquire new information? We need to start by understanding the differences between the professional’s situation and the layperson’s or citizen’s. Briefly put, the professional’s job requires and encourages attention to a limited part of the environment. The job of police officer, soldier, pilot, firefighter, power plant operator, doctor, nurse, and so forth, exists to take a limited set of actions with respect to a limited set of people and conditions. Any other actions or concerns—listening to a sporting event, arguing with a partner, worrying about the mortgage—are at least officially out of bounds, regardless of how often they happen in real life. The fact that mistakes occur—aircraft land on the wrong runway, soldiers get caught in an ambush, the wrong medicine is given—is evidence that even under the best of circumstances SA can be imperfect.

The ordinary person concerned with self-defense has a job that is easier than the professional’s in some ways and harder in others. It is easier because, except in truly dire circumstances, people are not required to seek out danger, or carry out missions regardless of danger. The police officer, soldier, and firefighter ultimately exist in order to confront and contain danger. The medical professional, though not often at personal risk, exists to intervene in situations that threaten others’ lives or well-being.

The typical armed citizen or layperson, in contrast, has little to do with danger on a daily basis and is rarely, if ever, threatened (except perhaps in traffic). Most can order their lives to minimize their exposure, and the likelihood of their need for awareness of threat is correspondingly less. Furthermore, the layperson’s first option is to avoid rather than face threats. That’s how their job is easier. It is more difficult because, when danger is present, their knowledge is less accessible, their skills are likely to be less practiced, and (at least compared to police, military, and firefighters) their allowable actions are more restricted. Also unlike the professional “on the job,” the layperson’s attention is directed to a range of tasks—getting the groceries, making the sale, writing the article—and these motives and their associated concepts render the knowledge necessary for SA relatively less accessible. Being mindful of one’s surroundings takes additional effort and skill, beyond that required for one’s daily life. For the professional, that is one’s daily life. Furthermore, unlike many professionals (e.g. soldiers and firefighters), the armed citizen is likely to be alone, or at least be the only person with any training, when facing possible danger. In short, the layperson is less likely to need awareness of threat on a day-to-day basis, but when it is necessary, he or she must rely on less accessible knowledge, on less practiced skills, and must create a response from among fewer options.

Some might argue that awareness skills are already in place, at least for most people. After all, don’t we drive in heavy traffic and avoid accidents regularly? Doesn’t this require observation and inference, both conscious and intuitive? Yes, but that is largely irrelevant. One, in traffic the vast majority just want to get to their destinations. They may be careless, unskilled, intoxicated, or reckless, but they’re not after you. Second, regardless of how good a driver you are, the domain of knowledge is different, and we know that expertise doesn’t transfer well (see, for example, Bedard and Chi, 1992). For example, I’ve been riding motorcycles for 41 years. I’ve raced, toured, commuted and cruised, in circumstances ranging from Florida swamps to Chicago rush hours, in all seasons and all weather. When my helmet goes on, so does my “race face,” and I move up and down the color code from yellow to orange to red and back several times a trip. I find myself noticing drivers about to do something potentially dangerous without knowing why I did, and likewise know when there are likely to be hazards like gravel or wet leaves on the road. Yes, I make mistakes when tired or distracted, though probably fewer than the average person. Nevertheless, when walking around in Atlanta, or on the Georgia Tech campus, I frequently find myself in Condition White despite my best intentions (and the efforts of those who’ve trained me). I’ll be in a hallway, for instance, and someone will pass me from behind, someone I didn’t know was there. Maybe it’s just me—there are individual differences in SA (Endsley & Bolstad, 1994)—but there’s likewise substantial data on the limits of expertise that it makes no sense to ignore.

What to Train?

SA training, like any other, requires us to establish both general and specific training objectives. Our general objective should be to increase two types of correct actions, and reduce two types of mistakes. We want to increase, first, true positives; that is, to detect danger when it exists. Klein (1998) gives a vivid account of how a firefighter’s intuitive misgivings led him to evacuate a seemingly ordinary house fire just before the floor collapsed. Pinizzotto, Davis, and Miller (2004) provide a similar example, a police officer’s timely identification of an armed suspect during a drug raid. Next, we want to increase true negatives; that is, dismiss a potential source of danger when it is, in fact, harmless. Givens (undated b) discusses returning to condition yellow after checking a potential danger. There are no dramatic examples of true negatives, but they are just as important to accurate SA.

Two types of mistakes require attention because of their huge potential cost. First, the false positive identifies danger where none is present. Ayoob (2000) provides a compelling account of one such mistake, the tragic shooting of Amadou Diallo. Experienced New York City police officers’ training, motives, expectations, and emotional state combined with Diallo’s own actions and the marginal environment to produce a needless death that none intended or imagined could happen.

The second type of mistake, the false negative, is the perception of safety where danger exists. Just as tragic as Diallo’s death, though not as well publicized, is the murder of Captain Robbie Bishop of Carrollton County, GA. Captain Bishop, an experienced officer and expert in drug interdiction, was shot to death in his patrol car as he wrote a routine traffic citation (www.copsite.com/lwf/lwf99disjon.html; www.ncea314.com/robbiebishop.asp). Though we can never know what led Captain Bishop to miss the danger signals his murderer gave, we must realize that any of us are capable of the same mistake.

Preventing mistakes like these might seem require contradictory courses of action: training both slower, more thoughtful responses (to avoid false positives) or faster, more aggressive responses (to avoid false negatives). Both are wrong. Simply put, at a given level of information, any change in response threshold (the “mental trigger” that governs action) to reduce one type of mistake will inevitably increase the other. Any change made to increase the percent of true positives will also increase the percent of false positives, and if one acts to increase the rate of true negatives, false negatives will increase as well. Given any level of error or uncertainty in our information, this must be true, simply by the laws of probability.

There are only two ways to reduce the rate of both types of mistakes while increasing that of both types of correct decisions: to have information that is more accurate and to use the information at hand better. These goals are the general objectives of training. The most efficient way to accomplish them is to find people who are already excellent at gathering and using information, discover what they know, how they know it, how it is organized, and how it is used, and teach those things to others. At the same time, research and further experience can increase our knowledge and the effectiveness of our training. While it may not be possible to make an expert of every trainee, we can certainly raise the average and, as in sports, raise the level of peak performance as well.

Specific Objectives

A great many people have provided lists of potential danger signals, and it would be redundant to repeat them here. One thing we don’t know is whether these signals—the coat in warm weather, the stranger who watches you or avoids your eyes, and so forth—are the only useful ones. These are simply the ones that experts can consciously articulate.

We also don’t know for sure what the expert notices about the environment, beyond the important but obvious features: the location of exits, the arrangement of tables in a restaurant, the location of cover and concealment, the position of other patrons in a store, etc. Sometimes, in fact, even these “obvious” features are unnoticed when we are preoccupied. Therefore, the first thing we need to know is how the expert scans the environment and how that information is organized and interpreted. Beyond visuals, we need to know what is heard, felt, smelled, tasted—even if the expert him- or herself can’t really tell us. In short, we need research. Some studies can use simulations, with equipment that tracks eye movements and records scanning patterns of scenes presented on a video monitor. These can be coupled with verbal probes. Such studies are now beginning (Force Science News, 2004). More elaborate studies might employ volunteers wearing glasses containing video cameras, so that areas attracting attention as the person goes about their daily life can be recorded and analyzed. GPS devices can track a person’s movement through environments such as shopping malls. In each case, experts’ and non-experts’ patterns of attention, movement, and reports of observations can be compared. Probably the simplest and cheapest method is what we currently do informally: interview people. We typically only interview after some incident, but I suggest that we also interview more and less expert observers during and after routine days, with questions designed to capture not only conscious observations but also feelings and intuitive signals. Most importantly, we should employ multiple methods, since each has strengths that complement another’s drawbacks (see, for instance, Ericsson, 2002).

We should treat the information thus gained as tentative, as hypotheses rather than facts. If, say, we find a particular pattern of scanning or movement to be characteristic of experts, its effectiveness can be tested in training studies and simulations.

Waiting for research to provide all the answers, though, is unnecessary and counterproductive. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Our knowledge may not be perfect, but it will never be. With our present technology and experience, we can train not only attention to known danger signals, but also the elaborated situational models that support both conscious and implicit awareness as well as action. As we gain knowledge, we can incorporate it into ongoing training.

We can also train observational skills. Although these are not independent of specific knowledge and situational models, each can reinforce the others. Scanning, listening, awareness of change, and especially attention to implicit responses—“feelings”-- will add a dimension now missing from most training.

We can also train motivation towards two goals: to attend to one’s environment, and to practice the skills necessary to awareness. While those who choose to arm themselves are already “motivated,” the specific motive to attend to one’s environment must compete with others, even motives as mundane as remembering to pick up a gallon of milk, or to get the car’s oil changed. Likewise, the motive to improve one’s skills at observation, inference, and intuition must compete with other ordinary motives on a moment-to-moment basis, and compete long-term for our limited attention, time, and energy.

We also need to train immediate action skills. In one sense, these are the focus of most of our current training in armed or unarmed combat. But all of these presuppose that we have identified a real danger. What if we are uncertain? It’s apparent that there are real individual differences in the skills that gain us the distance and time to make better judgments; they emerge reliably in simulations and assessments like the ATSA Village scenarios, but if they have been systematized anywhere, I’m not aware of it. Once again, expert reports and careful observation might be valuable.

How to Train

Before considering training techniques, we need to establish measures of performance. Without reliable and valid feedback, effective learning doesn’t happen. Without useful measures of awareness, we are unable to evaluate the effectiveness of training. At present, there are two types of measures: individual knowledge of situations, assessed by direct questioning during or after simulations (Endsley, Sollenberger, & Stein, 2000; Jones & Endsley, 2000; Matthews, Pleban, Endsley, & Strater, 2000) and performance scores on tasks that require situational knowledge (Pritchett, Hausman, & Johnson, 1996). The latter are likewise measured via simulations. Both types are limited. Questioning does not assess the connection of knowledge to action, and is limited to the contents of awareness. If not properly conducted, questioning itself may bias the results (see Ericsson, 2002). Performance measures, unless very carefully designed, do not provide specific knowledge of the timing and content of awareness, though they reflect both implicit and explicit processes. Fortunately, the two methods are complementary. Both can and should be used.

Situational Models and Danger Signals

These need to be discussed together, because signals are only meaningful as parts of a cognitive model. Without an elaborated model, a list of signals is no more meaningful or easy to use than a laundry list. If our goal is to create expert-level models to guide perception and response, we need to do it the same way other kinds of expertise are created: deliberate, guided practice (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). But at what tasks?

I suggest that we can incorporate the desired skills into a number of tasks. First, the technology of first-person video games can be adapted to present realistic scenarios based on existing and future knowledge. For example, we know that behavior such as voice tone and posture can communicate intention and emotional state (see de Gelder, et al., 2004, for a recent example.) There is no reason why subtle signals of danger or safety, once discovered, can’t be represented in video games as well as they are in movies. They should include active response options, to build connections between SA and multiple options for action. The chess master’s perception of a position automatically calls up sets of effective moves and countermoves, and this automaticity additionally provides the capacity needed to create new options. The novice, meanwhile, is searching memory or “dithering,” trying to make a choice. Our training should aim at producing the master’s kind of skill. These games have the advantage of being usable at home, easily upgraded, adaptable to any skill level and relatively inexpensive. While they lack important elements of realism (physical movement, for instance) they are certainly no worse than other training simulations. They can be programmed to probe for knowledge at random intervals and to provide detailed performance feedback.

We can incorporate realistic awareness training into recreational activities such as IDPA competition. Right now IDPA tests marksmanship, movement, and gun-handling skills, but there is no reason why we can’t build threat identification and avoidance into scenarios. I’ve been impressed, for instance, by the creativity of a number of friends who devised inexpensive moving targets and “pop-out” threat cues. My local Polite Society group has made efforts along these lines, too, and of course, it’s a central theme of the NTI.

More elaborate training facilities offer “shoot-houses” of varying levels of complexity. Every year, entrepreneurs offer visits to Halloween “haunted houses” starting about October 1, and firms exist that will set them up in any warehouse or other space. It seems to me an easy step to combine these creations, using airsoft training weapons if the use of live-fire or simunitions weapons is not feasible. While obviously too elaborate and costly for everyday use, they could be employed to teach both awareness and response skills, with immediate feedback.

As digital video recording becomes less expensive, this technology can also be incorporated into training. Having a visual reference for feedback and review (e.g. “See how you walked past that doorway?”) could be very helpful in correcting mistakes and in planning more effective actions.

Mental rehearsal is another valuable practice routine. Widely used in sports training and in a variety of therapies, (see, e.g., Dunn, 2001; Swets & Bjork, 1990), visualization and mental rehearsal skills can be easily learned and practiced almost anywhere. Combined with video and text materials, and guided by formal instruction, visualization and rehearsal can help integrate and elaborate one’s mental models of situations, habits of observation, and patterns of response. A technique suggested by several trainers is to read crime reports in the local newspaper and visualize one’s response to the situation. We can easily expand this to visualizing and rehearsing scanning patterns and behavioral signals that trigger effective action.

Feedback is necessary for practice to build skill. I suggest applying awareness skills consciously, as we go through our daily routines. We can test ourselves by recording, for example, how many times per day we have to suddenly stop because someone we didn’t notice came out of a doorway or around a corner, or at lunch by trying to remember the location of exits in our restaurant.

Motivation for Awareness

It might seem silly to say that one needs to learn the motivation to be aware of one’s surroundings, especially to NTI participants. We know, however, that motives must be active to guide perception and action, and that motives compete for our limited attentional capacity (see, e.g., Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994; Feldman Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004). In order to influence our awareness reliably, then, the motive to be aware needs chronic activation.

Motives arise because classes of actions are consistently associated with pleasurable outcomes, or the avoidance of painful ones. Effective soldiers, firefighters, and police officers maintain awareness for two simple reasons: they may die if they don’t, and their partners, teammates and buddies both support and depend on them.

Supporters, though, rarely surround armed citizens—in fact, we’re likely to be dismissed as “paranoid”—and the presence of danger is far less frequent and obtrusive. That means that, most of the time, each person has to reward him- or herself. We can set up self-reward schedules based on our self-evaluated performance and alertness, as discussed above. It may be a feeling of accomplishment we allow ourselves to have, an extra helping of dessert, a cigar after dinner, or $5 towards something we want to buy—the trick is to develop a consistent habit of thought and action around awareness.

We can build positive reinforcement into our group practices and competitions as well. People are social creatures, and receiving approval and status for an activity is a powerful incentive as well as a way to make the activity itself rewarding. When awareness tests are included in competition scenarios, and we create a social norm of mutual encouragement and reinforcement, we’ve taken an important step in creating a chronically active motive.

Motivation to Train

Ericsson, et al. (1993) and Ericsson and Charness (1994) find that many years of dedicated practice are necessary to achieve world-class expertise in any field. Furthermore, they note that most people do not deliberately practice after attaining minimal skill at some activity; they play for fun, not for keeps. How do experts discipline themselves to attain peak performance? Is this level of dedication necessary to our goals?

Fortunately, the answer to second question is “no.” What’s necessary is to be better, and to seek continual improvement. While it’s true that in life-threatening situations there is no such thing as “good enough,” it’s also true that we all have other areas of our lives that are as or more important on a daily basis. The crucial goal is to make improving awareness an integral part of daily activities, not something that unduly interferes with them.

If training is a source of frustration and anxiety, it’s not going to be done, and will undermine awareness motives as well. The trick to maintaining “motivation control” and “emotion control’ (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1995) lies in knowing how to set goals, what goals to set, and how to react to them.

We know that setting difficult, specific goals improves performance on well-learned tasks and inhibits learning at early stages. Self-focused attention and negative emotion seem to be the culprits in the latter. That suggests avoiding specific goals early in training, instead adopting a “mastery” orientation—that is, focusing on improvement, regardless of the rate. This needs to be combined with self-reinforcement for any improvement, however small, and periods of reflection on task strategies. That is, regard feedback as information, rather than as evaluation, and use it to explore various means of improving performance. As skill builds, specific goals can be adopted, keeping the “mastery’ approach. The logic is that there is no pre-set upper limit to performance, no “good enough” point, but that improvement is its own reward.

Directing attention to the task rather than the self is only half the story, though. A learning process necessarily creates mistakes, and for at least some people mistakes create negative emotions that can not only interfere with learning but also lead to withdrawal. Some people become anxious at the thought of doing any activity at which they may fail, with similar results. Teaching emotion management skills can increase performance and allow the activity itself to become enjoyable. A variety of techniques, such as controlled relaxation combined with visualization, can short-circuit anxiety. “Positive self-talk” is a way of making emotionally positive ideas and concepts accessible in stressful situations. These, combined with rehearsal and visualization of skills, can enhance skill and motivation simultaneously.

Conclusion

This paper has not been nearly so much about answers as questions; How should we regard “situation awareness”? How is our knowledge of the world organized, and how might we use that organization to our advantage? What do experts know that the rest of us don’t? How can we capture that knowledge, and transfer it efficiently? The theories, data, and methods discussed here represent (in my opinion) our best current answers to those questions, but if science teaches us anything it’s that the questions count more than the answers, and that we make progress by learning to ask different questions. Experience teaches us that some of the most productive questions come from observations of the world, especially observations of the solutions people find to the daily problems they face. I hope that this paper stimulates people to explore, ponder, discuss, and evaluate in practice the ideas summarized here, and that the process proves to be of benefit even if some or all of the ideas are wrong. This will take time and effort. That shouldn’t be discouraging. As engineers say about any kind of project or product:

You can have it good.

You can have it fast.

You can have it cheap.

Pick two.

References

Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E., Devine, P.G., Curtin, J.J., Hartley, S.L., & Covert, A.E. (2004). Neural signals for the detection of unintentional race bias. Psychological Science, 15, 88-93.

Ayoob, M. (2000). Hallway firefight: The Amadou Diallo shooting. American Handgunner (Nov.) www.findarticles.com

Bargh, J.A. (1994). The four horsement of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention and control in social cognition. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. & T.K. Srull (Eds.) Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed, pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bargh, J.A., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (1994). Environmental control over goal-directed action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situations and behavior. In W.D. Spaulding (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 41, Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 71-124). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bedard, J. & Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 135-139.

Blair, I.V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.

deBecker, G. (1997). The gift of fear. New York, NY: Dell.

Dunn, J.R. (2001). Psychology in military special operations: An interview with John C. Chin, Ph.D. Psychology Online Journal, 2, www.psychjournal.com/interviews

Endsley, M.R. (2000). Situation models: An avenue to the modelling of mental models. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Endsley, M.R. & Kiris, E.O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381-394.

Endsley, M.R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65-84.

Endsley, M.R., & Bolstead, C.A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 241-264.

Endsley, M.R., Sollenberger, R., & Stein, E. (2000). Situation awareness: A comparison of measures. Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation: User Centered Design for the New Millennium Conference. October.

Ericsson, K.A. & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725-747.

Ericsson, K.A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981-987.

Feldman Barrett, L., Tugade, M.M., & Engle, R.W. (2004). Individual differences in working-memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 553-573.

Force Science News (2004). Scan patterns: Next breakthrough in survival training? Transmission #4, Force Science Research Center, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN. www.forcescience.com

Frensch, P.A. & Runger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 13-18.

Givens, T. (undated a). States of awareness, the Cooper Color Codes. www.rangemaster.com.

Givens, T. (undated b). Intelligence gathering for personal safety. www.rangemaster.com.

Gonzalez, J. (2004). Situational awareness. SWAT, January, 18-20.

Jones, D.G., & Endsley, M.R. (2000). Can real-time probes provide a valid measure of situation awareness? Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation: User Centered Design for the New Millennium Conference. October.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P.L. (1995). A self-regulatory skills approach to reducing cognitive interference. In I.E. Sarason, G.R. Pierce & B.R. Sarason (Eds.). Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 153-171). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Katkin, E.S., Wiens, S., & Ohman, A. (2001). Nonconscious fear conditioning, visceral perception, and the development of gut feelings. Psychological Science, 12, 366-370.

King, L., & Appleton, J.V. (1997). Intuition: A critical review of the research and rhetoric. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 194-202.

Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Levy, D.A., Starck, C.E.L., & Squire, L.R. (2004). Intact conceptual priming in the absence of declarative memory. Psychological Science, 15, 680-686.

Mack, A. (2003). Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 180-184.

Marsh, H.S. (2000). Beyond situation awareness: The battlespace of the future. Draft report, Office of Naval Research, 20 March 2000.

Matthews, M.D., Pleban, R.J., Endsley, M.R., & Strater, L.D. (2000). Measures of infantry situation awareness in a vitual MOUT environment. Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation: User Centered Design for the New Millennium Conference. October.

National Institute of Justice (2004). Nature and influence of intuition in law enforcement: Theory and practice. Introduction to conference notes, June 22-23, 2004, Marymount University, Arlington, VA.

Pinizzotto, A.J., Davis, E.F., & Miller, C.E. III (2004). Intuitive policing: Emotional/rational decision making in law enforcement. www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0322intuit.html

Pritchett, A.R., Hansman, R.J., & Johnson, E.N. (1996). Use of testable responses for performance-based measurement of situation awareness. Presented at the International Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situational Awareness. November.

Resink, R.A. (2004). Visual sensing without seeing. Psychological Science, 15, 27-32.

Simons, D.J., & Chabris, C.F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059-1074.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2002). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, New Orleans, LA December.

Swets, J.A. & Bjork, R.A. (1990). Enhancing human performance: An evaluation of “new age” techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychological Science, 1, 85-96.

Winkielman, P., & Berridge, K.C. (2004). Unconscious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 120-123.

[1] There are some statements in Slovic, et al. with which readers will disagree violently. I do, too. However, these do not affect the validity of their arguments.

3/18/10 (SouthNarc, Camoflage, Suarez Knife)

SouthNarc Comes to Phoenix this Fall!

Extreme Close Quarters Combat (ECQC) / In Extremis Knife (IEK) / Managing Unknown Contacts

Cutting Edge Fight Survival

Handgun, knife, and hand to hand combat at 0 – 5 feet

Train with world-renowned combat authority SouthNarc in Phoenix, AZ

November 12th – 14th, 2010

Don’t miss this rare opportunity to learn how to truly survive a lethal force encounter and develop the ability to keep yourself and your loved ones safe in a violent world.

SouthNarc is the Internet name of a Police Lt. from a Law Enforcement agency in the southeastern USA who spent years working undercover and now runs a multi-agency SWAT team. Also a former Army Ranger, SouthNarc has spent years studying firsthand what are the best methods to stay alive when threatened with deadly force. His concepts and training methods such as his close quarter handgun, knife, H2H, and managing unknown contacts work are in high demand worldwide with police, military, and private citizens.

Extreme Close Quarter Concepts (ECQC) Nov. 13th – 14th

The ShivWorks (ECQC) course is a two-day block of instruction that focuses on a multi-disciplinary approach to building functional, combative handgun skills at zero to five feet. The course is designed to instill core concepts of seamless integration and provide the platform for aggressive problem solving during a life or death struggle. A heavy emphasis is placed upon commonality of body mechanics between skill sub-sets, which means that all combative software is reinforcing. Once the student’s skill sets are initially ingrained, the participant will be stress inoculated with force on force drills utilizing Simunitions and protective equipment.

Topics covered include:

• Diagnostics

• Introduction to the components of the Combative Drawstroke

• Off-hand fending positions

• Default position

• Basic empty hand blows

• Theory of in-fight weapon access

• Grounded basics

• Challenging the potential attacker

• Preemptive weapon access

• Negotiating the F.U.T. (fouled up tangle)

• ECQ Handgun retention in holster

• ECQ handgun retention out of holster

• Handgun recovery

• Handgun striking

Equipment required

Holster, pistol, two magazines, eye & ear protection, heavy sweatshirt or soft body armor, mouthpiece and cup, 200 rounds of ammo. This class is not recommended for beginning shooters. Students should be relatively fit as this is a contact class. Most of the latter half of each day will be spent utilizing Simunition marking cartridges and FIST helmets, to allow the students to gain confidence in applying their newly acquired skills against moving aggressive opponents in Force-on-Force scenarios.

Managing Unknown Contacts (MUC) / In-Extremis Knife (IEK) – Nov. 12th

The ShivWorks MUC/IEK course is a 4-hour block of instruction that focuses on a non-stylized method that will work with any edged weapon or any improvised weapon as well, or even empty handed. The course deals with realistic criminal assault and provides a simple decision making process for access and application that anyone use successfully use.

Cost for both courses is $425. For more information or to sign up, please contact Cecil Burch at 602-625-2523 or email at Cecil.Burch@gmail.com

The details:

Times:
Friday 6 PM –10 PM

Sat & Sun 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
Location:

MUC/IEK on Friday

4138 W. Buckskin Trail

Phoenix, AZ 85083

ECQC Sat & Sun

The Casa Grand Police Dept. range next to Elsy Pearson Rifle Range

2766 S. Isom Rd.

Casa Grande, AZ 85222

Casa Grande is roughly 45 minutes south of the Phoenix airport.

I suggest staying in a hotel more north, closer to the MUC location, since that will be our base of operations and if you are staying around that area, it will be easier to carpool and to be able to get together outside of training for dinner/hanging out.

Here are a couple of options (all of these are very new hotels)

Hilton Garden Inn
http://hiltongardeninn.hilton.com/en/gi/hotels/index.jhtml?ctyhocn=PHXHVGI

Homewood Suites
http://homewoodsuites1.hilton.com/en_US/hw/hotel/PHXHYHW-Homewood-Suites-by-Hilton-Phoenix-North-Happy-Valley-Arizona/index.do;jsessionid=7E3E5E9B1B686B50985557AE850072E3.etc83?brand_id=HW&brand_directory=/en/hw/&xch=289666309,ZWDEQOFJLHQRUCSGBIVM22Q

Hampton Inn
http://travela.priceline.com/travelguides/hotels/Hampton_Inn_Suites_Phoenix_North_Happy_Valley_Phoenix_Arizona_United_States-1084549.html?plf=PCLN&irefid=PLTGMERCH&irefclickid=PHOENIXAZ

Camoflage the Art of Lieing

by JWR on Survival Blog

Camouflage: The Art of the "Liar", by T.W.P.

Human Perception - from an artist’s point of view.

Have you ever sat down and watched a movie? Sure you have. But did you ever stop to realize that everything you were watching was a lie? Most likely not, even though you do understand that intellectually.

Most movies cash in on the concept of “suspension of disbelief” which means “you know that what you are watching is not real or true, but you are willing to pretend, accept that it is real or true, for sake of entertainment.” It is an implied contract between you, and the makers of that movie. The producers of that movie have an obligation to you - and that obligation is to make it “look” so real, make is so convincing - that you are able to believe it when you see it.

A “Special Effect” that you noticed and commented on, saying “Wow that was a great effect, it really looked real” is actually a badly executed effect. If you recognized it as an effect, it was not a successful effect – because you recognized it – it drew attention to itself.

A real special effects artist covers his tracks so well, that you believe that what you saw was real, and do not question it or recognize it as an effect – you accept it at face value – and that is what camouflage is really all about – tricking your opponent into accepting what he sees at face value, and not even thinking to question it.

For the past 28 years, I have been employed as a professional sculptor/artist in the entertainment industry. What that means is that for those years, I have been paid to lie to you. That statement is not meant to give offense. It is meant to draw your attention to a point that I think could save your life.

Camouflage is, quite simply the skill of lying. Think about it. You goal, your desire is to create an illusion, a deception, a trick of the eye with such skill that your enemy does not see you, or realize that either “you” or “it” is actually there at all. Your enemy thinks it is just a rock, a bush, and clump of dirt, - he has no idea that there is something there at all. He is at ease, relaxed; he feels safe and does not see any booty to snap up for himself, or any enemy to threaten him, because he sees nothing but the environment around him.

That is your goal – right? So, to achieve that goal, you need to become a great liar!

You have all seen paintings, photographs, “art” of many kinds. But the things you see are not what your mind tells you they are. Thus, your mind plays tricks on you, it “interprets” or “translates” the images it receives by way of your eye, into concepts; and then you react or respond to those perceived concepts.

But the concepts your mind’s eye creates by way of its interpretation of visual stimuli, may not be accurate with respect to the objective environment, as any one of a million playfully entertaining optical illusions can clearly demonstrate. Your mind can be easily tricked into believing something that is not real or true.

In general, there are very few straight lines or repeated patterns in nature. Exceptions to the rule do exist, in such things as sedimentary strata that is uninterrupted by geological events beyond its original “manufacture”, or the magnificent rhythm of sea shells, and a few other things; but as a rule, regularity and repetition, rhythm and pattern, is rather hard to find out in the bush.

However, in contrast to the “randomness of nature” the human mind, tends to seek out regularity and pattern, rhythm and harmony. (Bear in mind that the eye does not “see” anything. It is merely an organic structure designed to collect and receive light from the outside world, and transfer the image to the mind for interpretation. It is the human brain that actually “sees” what is going on out there, by way of interpreting the information given to it by the eye.)

Our modern definition of beauty to a very large degree stems from this perception of “visual harmony” and we seek out balance and summitry as a means to define beauty in others. In other words, the left and right eye are “balanced” with respect to each other. The nose is centered on the face, and if a sentient line or center line were drawn through the middle of it, both half’s of the nose would be in balance. In the male, if this balance and cemetery is hard and “chiseled” he is considered handsome or good looking. In the female, if this harmony of features or balance is soft and delicate, she is considered beautiful.

There are occasions when a “crooked smile” can be considered quite attractive – but the very reason it is considered attractive, is because we recognize that it is “crocked” as compared and contrasted to our traditional interpretation of beauty, which seeks out that straight, balanced harmony radiating from a center line, and it becomes that consciously recognized exception to the rule that we find attractive.

Because we tend to seek out rhythm and balance, we automatically create a repetition or pattern in our physical actions. But then this very pattern, this rhythm is precisely what our eye seeks out and recognizes.

So, to truly disappear into your environment…

Rule # 1 = never repeat your pattern or your placement of color or item. Become deliberately random. Consciously pay attention to your natural tendency to become rhythmic and repetitious, and willfully violate that natural tendency by placing things at deliberately irregular intervals.

Test yourself on this. Take a sea sponge and dip it in paint, and then casually dabble that paint loaded sponge on a wall or plywood board. Then step back and look at your work. Odds are, you will see a rhythm, an equally spaced, even and regular pattern of sponge pats on the wall. In fact, you could almost put a tape measure to each sponge splotch, and they would all be within a ¼ of one another.

This is exactly what you want to take note of – and avoid when seeking to camouflage yourself or your stash! If you see a pattern, so will your enemy. Remember – rhythm and regularity = presence of man – weather your opponent consciously recognizes this fact, or not, he will “perceive it” and gravitate towards this regularity.

“Composition” is something you will hear artists speak about frequently. This refers to the placement of colors and images within the frame of the work. (And the negative space – the “empty” space around objects, between objects, within objects – is also an element of the art work – and something you need to pay attention to).

This concept of composition is a format artists use to guide the viewers eye along a specific path to enhance interest and visual pleasure. (the eye can be directed along a specific and predetermined path – guided by the skillful artist to “look here, not there” - hint, hint).

But again, with physical objects, (in the case of a painting, for example, a pile of rocks) even numbers of elements represent regularity and pattern, and regularity and pattern means man, not nature.

Rule #2 = odd numbers work better than even numbers. Place colors or elements in groups of 3, 5, 7, et cetera.

Starbucks, like every retail food outlet, offers three sizes of drink cup. They don’t call it small, medium and large, they rename it so it sounds fancy and costs more - Tall, Vente, and Grande, but it is still small, medium and large drink cup size no matter how you slice things up.

But if you stop to think about it, a small one, a large one, and one that is exactly in the middle of those two - - is regular, predictable, rhythmic and repetitious. It is contrived. It is according to the rules of pattern and harmony.

What that means is – to camouflage yourself and your stash, you need to be aware of this, and violate that thinking. In composition, (placement of items and colors within your framework) arrangements that are odd numbered work better. Arrangements like large, large, small - or small, small, medium. Remember – odd numbers (3,5,7), and odd arrangements (L,L,s).

Rule #3 = selection of object sizes and placement relationships with one another, should be as random and irregular as the arrangement of item groups within your overall framework.

You have all seen Leonardo De Vinci’s masterpiece “The Last Supper” But I invite you to revisit that work with a new understanding. Notice, as you view it, that each of the Apostles are in groups of three, (odd number) and that each group is slightly separated from the other groups. Notice also that the eyes of all Apostles (save Judas) are facing towards Christ. Notice also that the building in which they sit, is rendered in what is called a single point perspective, with a single vanishing point – all things converge on that vanishing point, and Christ is at the center of it. In other words, everything in that picture, from foreground to background to the stitching on the tablecloth - commands, forces, directs our eye to our Lord, Jesus Christ. You have no choice but to look upon Him. Da Vinci skillfully directed you to look where he wanted you to look, and you naturally obey.

Bearing this in mind, you can also misdirect your adversary by employing branches, sticks, or a carefully placed “line” of items, all pointing where you want him to look. See what you want him to see. You can actually direct his path, even make him literally walk right where you want him to walk, by placing well crafted “arrows” that point along your chosen path (providing you do do not make it obvious - - another rule of art is that often - less is more, so don’t forget the first three rules).

Rule #4 = item arrangements can direct the eye along a predetermined path. Knowing this, gives you the power to control that path and direct your adversaries attention to a point you chose.

As a sculptor, on occasion I will accidentally chip off a chunk of material that results in what we call “the happy accident.” It usually happens because I am working quickly. While this break in material was not designed, expected or intended, nevertheless it often yields fantastic results, and is incorporated into the work, if at all possible.

However, being human, we tend to seek order and harmony – we desire to have control – and we also tend to work that way. We tend to work meticulously and deliberately, with care and consideration towards our goal. But again, this is not how nature works. Haphazard and disorganized is natural – and the best way to achieve this “look” is not to be too careful, too controlled or to focused on what you are doing.

Rule #5 = Deliberately work with haste and speed (until you master the first 3 rules) to allow for the haphazard ‘happy accident’ that more accurately reflects a natural environment. Force yourself to do it fast until you get good at it, then you will do it fast because you are good at it.

Those professionals who make their craft look easy are those who have done it so many times, that they don’t have to stop and think about it anymore.

This deliberate under pressure, with speed technique is the first step in teaching a student to be a sculptor – because his natural tendency is to start detailing from one end to the other, rather than establish the overall “anatomy” first. Most people see only the surface, the final detail and finish, and neglect to recognize the more important underlying structure – bones, muscle, balance, etc.

The foundation upon which your details are built - is more important than the details themselves. You “see” the frosting on the cake – the surface detail - sure, but don’t forget the frosting is on the cake.

Another trick of the trade is a bit more tactical, and goes hand in hand with rule #4. Diversion and distraction.

In my profession, we often employ a technique called “the purple flower.” Art directors, having already designed and blueprinted or sketched the look of the movie on paper are - technically speaking, no longer needed on the payroll. They design it, send it to me and I build it, according to design. Simple.

However, would you want to walk away from a $5,000 per week paycheck? So, what would you need to do in order to justify your continued employment? Make changes!

Well, we know they are going to make changes. So – we give them something to change. We deliberately introduce into the project, something wrong, something noticeably out of whack. Naturally, he will see this, and demand we “fix this immediately,” to which we promptly reply “yes sir!”

He has corrected our mistake, justified himself on the payroll, and is happy, and yet, he has not messed up all our work, because we directed and controlled his “change” by giving him something to change.

(Please don’t let the cat out of the bag by telling others about this – especially if you are under a chain of command. The C.O. cannot find out what you are doing or the game is up.)

In other words, your adversary is looking for something – anything that will tip him off as to your presence. Give him what he wants. But under your control, not his.

Rule #6 = Now that you know some of the rules, (and you do need to master them first. Foundation, remember?) learn when to throw the rules out and go right back to doing what you should not do.

Remember, the odds are, your adversary does not know the rules to art, or how to control human behavior through visual stimuli – so take advantage of his ignorance - - today’s marketing and advertising agencies do this to you every day of your life.

Camouflage patterns on military uniforms have, for decades been defensive in nature. Their goal was (obviously) to break up the human form or silhouette, using colors found in nature and irregular patters. Their intent was to make the wearer “fade away” – “disappear into the surrounding foliage” or simply put - “hide.”

Today’s digital camouflage pattern is quite the opposite. It is a deliberately ‘in your face’ offensive pattern (psychologically speaking). If you look closely, it is composed of colored squares – which as we all know are shapes that are exactly equal on all four sides – i.e. regular, mathematical, and thus, easily discernable in a non-mathematical natural setting (or so one would think).

However, this new pattern is designed around the manner in which human perception functions and operates. The designers understand how the human eye perceives color, shape and line, and how the human mind translates the visual stimuli brought to it through the eye to formulate perceptions and concepts. Thus, digital camouflage assaults your brain’s natural perceptive methodology – which makes it more effective than the traditionally defensive camo pattern. (The colors are more subtle too – prone to emulate the tones on a bright sunlit day).

What happens is that your mind blends, interprets, or translates those “tiny little squares” into fuzzy random, totally innocuous natural shapes. There is no “edge” to separate “this” shape from “that” shape and thus identify it as a printed pattern – so it all blends together into something else. Next time you see the digital pattern, try squinting your eyes as you look at it, and you will see how it effects you. You fill in the blanks. You “participate” (albeit, without your conscious knowledge) in the camouflage of the digital patterns now worn by our military.

Thus, as exemplified by Edgar Allen Poe, and Sherlock Holmes – on occasion, the best possible disguise is right in front of your eyes. Naked. Exposed. Right there – which is the last place anyone would think to look. A cop, searching for an escaped convict, probably would not think to search the police station’s basement.

Remember, your opponent is expecting you to try and hide it.

Rule #7 = Sometimes, right out in the open, in plain sight is the best possible place to “hide” it, simply because they are expecting you to hide it – looking for where you hid it, and not expecting, or looking for the obvious. (This tactic can also serve well as “bait for the trap”).

There are a number of additional ‘rules of art’ but the best teacher is observation and practice. Wonder around in nature and really stop and “look” at it.

Most beginners, if I instructed them to sculpt a rock, would create something that more closely resembles a potato than a rock. This is not because they are incompetent (per se) – so much as because they “think” they know what a rock looks like, and as a result, have never actually stopped and looked at a rock. They assume they know what they know they don’t know – to their determent.

So, go out and really look at your environment – study it. Take notes as to what you see – and why it is the way it is.

Take a few minutes to read a book or two on art and learn what defines it, what categorizes “good” from “bad” art. It will help, not to mention expanding your horizons and affording you a new found “level of cultural enlightenment and appreciation.”

Note: Considering what I just said, I have to add that the Accredited Fine Arts Academia today - is a socialist/elitist, self glorifying pompous joke. I know many people with degrees in art – but I have never met one on the job site. “Those who can – do. Those who cannot - go back to school and teach.”

Be that as it may – learning something about art is not going to hurt you. In fact, it may grant you a little more insight as to how “you” function in your environment.

In the meantime, don’t necessarily buy a bunch of expensive ghillie suits and nets and stuff at Cabela’s (however ‘cool’ they might be). More often than not, your best bet is to use whatever is there, within the environment you are trying to hide in. You want to blend into “it” – so use “it.”

Procedure:

So, say that you want to hide your truck or your pile of MREs in such a way that you can retrieve them quickly and easily, whatever. How do you go about it?

For first time ‘artists,’ hesitation, fear of a mistake, self consciousness and insecurity must be overcome. And anyone trying something new, for the very first time, is, naturally, going to be self conscious and hesitant--afraid of messing it up.

However, if you are afraid of making a mistake – you will. And, there is nothing that cannot be changed, amended, altered or adjusted to correct a ‘mistake.’ There is no such thing as a mistake (unless you are on a deadline and getting paid). Further, very often, those perceived mistakes actually further your goals –so allow for them.

However, to break through that barrier of self hesitation and insecurity – force yourself to work fast. Reflect on your goals (camouflage) - – then reflect on the general rules of art - - then stop thinking and attack what you are doing with boldness and power, confidence and positive self-assurance. Throw yourself at it whole heartedly. Loosen up – relax. “Play” at it.

Then, when some progress has been made, pause and take a step back. Review. Ask yourself:

 “Does it conform with, or violate the rules of art and human perception?”

 “Which do I want it to do – conform, violate, misdirect, or guide?”

 “What is my next step?”

The answers to these questions will give you information, and it is the information you receive from your work that will dictate your next action. (It sounds a bit “Zen” but the only way I can describe this is to “let the work speak to you – and learn how to listen to it.”)

Then – attack it again, boldly, powerfully and quickly.

But, know when to stop fussing with it and put the tool down. Know when to say ‘when', and walk away – because it is all too easy to “overwork” something, and destroy the point to your efforts.

Very often, less work yields a more effective result – as we have pointed out, less “attention to detail” commands and requires the viewer to “participate” in the work – to fill in the blanks himself – and that is what will trick him into thinking it is simply a bush or a pile of rocks – so learn how to use your opponents own mind against him!

Proviso: If you are doing this in the safety and comfort of your back yard - to practice and learn the some of the skills – you may find you are having some fun. Do not let your spouse figure this out, or they will take it away from you and replace it with a “honey do” list. ‘God’s speed’ to one and all. - T.W.P.

JWR Adds: Keep in mind the classic military observation cues when you are designing camouflage:

Shape (avoid straight lines)

Shine (use flat tones)

Shadow

Sound

Scent

Movement (nothing draws the human eye more quickly--after all, we are predators with binocular vision.)

Color

Take a look at this series of photos of Swiss Army bunkers, and then this montage, and answer this: what did they do right, and what did they do wrong? Do you see the straight lines?

Now take a look at this series of photos. (If you can't mimic nature, then mimic man! Note that the "windows" are all just painted on the reinforced concrete.) Ach! Those same clever SwitzerDudes that invented the Swiss Army Knife. You have to admire them. OBTW, a stack of cordwood can hide a lot of things, including a bunker entrance.

My favorite hidden bunker door is in the second photo on this page. (It takes a while to spot the door hinges.)

For additional reading, I recommend these two books: The War Magician and False Colors: Art, Design and Modern Camouflage.

Permalink - http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/08/camouflage_the_art_of_the_liar.html&title=Camouflage: The Art of thehttp://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/08/camouflage_the_art_of_the_liar.html&title=Camouflage: The Art of the

Gabe Suarez on Knife fighting (Winter 2010)

KNIFE FIGHTING POINTS

Ten Points About The Fighting Knife

1). The knife is always with you, even in places where the gun cannot go.

2). It becomes the first line of weaponry when the pistol is not available by choice, policy, inaccessibility or loss.

3). If things have gotten bad enough to need the knife, the use of the knife should be aggressive, brutal and terminal, and not "defensive".

4). There is a place for using a knife against the unarmed adversary if that adversary is younger, stronger or faster than you are...or more numerous.

5). There is a place for keeping them away with your edge, but there is also a place for closing and stabbing.

6). A knife worthy of combat carry should facilitate stabbing and be simple and instictive to use.

7). The more complicated and complex a knife is, and the more elaborate its system of use, the less desirable it is.

8). Conversely, the simpler the knife and the system and more gross motor dependant it is, the better it will do in a fight.

9). A fixed blade is more desirable than a folder, but a folder may be required in some applications. If a folder is used, the lock should be robust and not technically clever.

10). Learn to be violent with your knife

Ten Attributes To Select Your Fighting Knife

1). Sharp as hell and pointy as f***, you can't stab anyone or cut anyone with a dull round nosed blade. If this sounds vulgar, it is. There is nothing dainty about ramming a 3" piece of steel into a man's thrioat and tiwsting it as he fights to get it out.

2). Point in line with the handle. Upswept blades may be the acme of the knifemaker artist, but they suck eggs for ramming through a clavicle.

3). Long enough...but not too long. We hear that about lots of things.

4). Rough handle. Either G-10 or rough designed zytel handles. When you stab another man, his juices will get all over your blade and hand.

5). Solid lock. Liner locks suck. I don't care how graceful or cool they are...they suck. Axis lock as seen with benchmade or with Cold Steel is the way to go, or with an old style lockback design.

6). Solid opening method. This being 2009, and the "Wave" concept being as old as the pyramids now....a combat blade should have a wave feature if it is a folder.

7). Good steel. That does NOT mean stainless. I don't give an airborne fornication about stains on my knife...I WANT IT SHARP!

8). Again, if a folder, it needs a movable clip so operators may carry it as desired. The more I work on this Killing-focused system, the more I am liking reverse grip - edge in. That means for a righty, you carry point up- blade forward.

9). It must be cost-effective. Notice I did not say CHEAP. Cheap knives are for fags. Cost-effective means that if I decide to ditch it, I will not be heart broken to lose my special one-of-a-kind....nor will that special one-of-a-kind be tied to me.

10). There should be a boatload of them out there in society....like Glocks. Thus you cannot be identified or tied to the gear you use.

If some of this stuff sounds like it comes from the world of the criminal rather than the world of the law abiding good guy, it does. One does not go to a clean shaven altar boy to learn to cut a throat.

Ten Points About Using The Knife In A Fight

1). A fighting is knife is fueled by rage and ferocity, not by cleverness and showmanship. I recall seeing CWS go ape (or was it AMOK) on a knife expert we brought in one year. The best the very clever and artistic knife expert could do was match CWS stab for stab. But that was after CWS had stabbed him three or four times.

2). Learn to stab....HARD

3). Learn to hold the knife in a way that you will not lose it when you STAB HARD.

4). Since few of us go about with a 10" bowie, learn your targets. You may not be able to behead an attacker, but you can in fact rip out his jugular even with a 2" box cutter.

5). Footwork gets you off the line of the attack, but also gets you close enough to STAB HIM HARD.

6). The instant you pull steel your intent should be to stick it in his neck and rip it out a different way, and not to spar, fend, or ask him to stay back.

7). The grip area of your knife MUST be rough enough to stay in your hand if your hand is covered with blood (hopefully not yours).

8). The point must be in line with your stab. A Cold Steel Scimitar of a Spyderco Chinook do not have this, but a Cold Steel AK-47 and a Spyderco Endura do.

9). To train it, each knife must have an identical trainer (dulled knife) and a wooden/rubberized trainer (like Nok's). The identical trainer is used for technical and access drills. The wooden type trainer is used for attacking the heavy bag or the stabbing post.

10). Contrary to the advice of others, use your fighting knife for everything. From opening letters to cutting cheese or tomatoes. Handle your knife daily, keep it sharp, keep it handy. make accessing it as natural as scratching your butt.

__________________