The Big Archery Question – Instinctive? [Archive]

Highlander

11-13-2007, 06:00 AM

Lets try to initiate the POSITIVE archers discussion on what Instinctive archery entails as said before by Martin, inevitably this forum will entice those wishing to shoot holes in the philosophy so lets clear that up first (lets make a go of it one more time).

The discussion will be on what archers deem instinctive in there bow usage, and not whether they can be described by other words of our vocabulary, any one wishing to shoot holes!! Please direct it at the relevant thread “instinctive – not according to science”

I will start with reaction and pose this: if someone throws you a silver dollar, a ball or whatever, your hand if unaware shoots out and, A catch, you did not have to think about how your fingers would wrap around the object they just did, you coordinated the catch perfectly (we will give the benefit of doubt in favor at least)

Lets try to break down the whole process (which instinctive archers do automatically and as such is not really a process) but we have to call it something!

Thus: the first? Point of bow usage is picking up the bow – Grip

Can we therefore say if this part can be instinctive* (according to Archery terms) and that the truly instinctive* shooter is unaware of how, why or what the exact position on the bow is other than its on a hand grip (if fitted)

I would say YES it could be an instinctive part of bow handling! If you are aware of fine tuning/adjusting then no.

Part two to follow after forum debate

Martin Hopefully we will coerce and keep the forum on track and get the desired discussion and find out piece by piece what is deemed to be the mystifying form of archery?

lets not try to walk before we can crawl..

Martin Farrent

11-13-2007, 08:28 AM

Highlander,

The basic problem is that many instinctive shooters are unwilling to inspect the details of their actual aiming process. They will tell you how to learn it via practice frameworks, but not what it consists of.

Many hold that the subconscious mind can learn things directly - i.e. without those things first being consciously explored. They will therefore maintain that they know nothing or very little about their aiming references.

That renders us unable to take the aiming process itself apart and wonder how it might actually work - or rather, we can only do so in a speculative way and without the instinctive shooters' cooperation. You might guess that some use a kind of split vision and others aim with the arm or via the arc of the arrow... but the instinctive shooter who has never shot more systematically will usually tell you he doesn't know how he does it - or even that he doesn't see the reference points he may be using.

On the other hand, we have those - like myself - who are very skeptical about this 'instinctive learning theory' in the first place. I think it contradicts much of what we know about the brain's functions. But by disputing the very foundation of some people's definition of "instinctive", we place ourselves at fundamental odds with them in any debate. That difference is so fundamental that the debate isn't worth having until this issue is cleared up (which won't happen).

And then we have those who maintain that systematic aiming (e.g. gapping) becomes instinctive with practice - meaning: automatic. Whether or not you regard these auto-shooters as "instinctive" opens up a third line of debate and investigation.

To me, it seems that instinctive and non-instinctive shooters (including the auto-shooters described in the last paragraph) won't ever find enough common ground to discuss this topic together.

In the end, it really boils down to: "I'm doing xyz," and: "No, you aren't." And that's just not a foundation for fruitful debate,

Best,

Martin

rusty craine

11-13-2007, 11:25 AM

here is the problem :) Instinctive archery - is this......it did not come to us from birth...that is I guess is obvious. For example some one sneaks up behind you and claps their hands close to your ear......what you do is instinctive. I would guess jump or start???? Now we instinctive know that sound was close to us we don't have to calculate the distance in any know way, right? if we had the same exact clap across the room we would not have been startled.

We can certainly tell if a threat is close to us or farther away, visually, by sound or maybe even other ways less direct. I would say those are instinctive, right?

so we can identify things that we use that could be considered instinctive. Now if a combination of these things are put together that are indeed instincts to us and used in the practice of shooting a bow....such as the ability to judge distance, the ability to tell visually how two are associated in space, etc..........we call that intsinctive shooting. that means we are using physical and mental functions that are instinctive to humans to learn to shoot a bow. It does not mean as so many seem to want to say that we came out of the womb know how to shoot a bow.

As Martin commented, we are a thinking animal, and it soon occurs to many of us that there could a more consistant way to learn to use our instincts to shoot a bow. That does not mean that if the "instinctive" shooter was presuded to the end you would not be a very good shot. it means ya have to practice a lot more. If we grew up shooting a bow from the time we could stand as the Abo people must have, if we had no numbering system to keep track of distance, and we had to eat from the results of our ability to shoot a bow........i bet we could.

Few of us have the real intellectual ability to explain how we walk. Very few of us have the intellectual ability to explain it on a celluar/molecluar level....but we all walk. I think the same thing is true of archery. if you practice shooting you bow enough as you indeed practiced walking alot. you could become a very good shot and have no real explaintion of what you were doing or how you were doing it.

rusty

Jeff Durnell

11-14-2007, 06:10 AM

This again?

Still hung up here, aye?

Mystifiying? See, the thing is, it's not mystifying to me at all, and I don't know why it should be to anyone who's spent so much time mullin' it over... yet, here we are... I believe, overly 'anal'itical of the term for the sake of argument, or worse.

I think I have a pretty good comprehensive, working understanding of instinctive shooting, and can disassemble it and apply the tools(including conscious and subconscious thought) needed to learn it, use it effectively, and make necessary corrections when issues arise. I'm far from mystified.

Highlander, of course I can't speak for everyone, but in learning, using, and maintaining the method, as needed, I shift my conscious awareness between various aspects of form, including how I hold each bow, while close enough to the backstop to preclude the need to dedicate that conscious awareness to focusing on a spot to hit.

Consciously(non-'instinctively'*) then, I can afford to alter my grip on the bow, and gauge the effects and interrelation with the overall shot process until I find a comfortable, relaxed, repeatable, non-torquing hold. I shoot there, within a few feet of the bales until I don't have to think about it anymore, then gradually move back, focusing only on the target while processing windage and elevation stimuli. If the grip, or any aspect of the shot process faults, doesn't mesh, or creeps into my consciousness and disrupts my focus, I don't hesitate to move back up, make conscious corrections if needed, and/or again ingrain it into the sub.

So no, a good grip on the bow isn't instinctive, per se. I taught myself, mostly consciously, how to grip it well, until I could do it well subconsciously.

You guys can pick the entire shooting process apart into the tiniest pieces if you like and argue about each of their relevance to true instinct because you're hung up on the terminology, but my, my, what a waste of time.

Martin Farrent

11-14-2007, 07:32 AM

You guys can pick the entire shooting process apart into the tiniest pieces if you like and argue about each of their relevance to true instinct because you're hung up on the terminology, but my, my, what a waste of time.

I'm not hung up on the terminology, Jeff.

You can call it "instinctive" if you like. I'll even join you in that.

It's the learning theory I don't buy - the idea of learning to aim without ever involving the conscious mind in the actual mechanics of aiming. You and others say it can be done, and I say it can't.

I say that people who believe it are kidding themselves... and yes, I realise that's not a very clever way of conducting a calm discussion. But there's no way around saying just that for me, because it's what I firmly regard as true.

That's why I'm not participating anymore. We disagree on the basics.

Best,

Martin

Larry Hatfield

11-14-2007, 02:34 PM

these posts are fun and not so fun to labor through. too many entrenched attitudes about the whole question to stay as an exchange of ideas very long.
not choosing any sides here, just passing along some observations over 50+ years of shooting a bow and other things.
walt wilhelm because of an injury ended up not being able to raise his bow arm above his hip, but still performed with his brother ken doing trick and stunt shooting. he said he could pretty much tell exactly how to aim even "shooting from the hip". both of them did great trick shooting and ken won the national target championships in the early fourties. they could flat shoot a bow! instinctive? i don't know.
damon howatt could and did shoot many arrows at long unknown distances with flight arrows with amazing accuracy. thats why he won so many archery golf shoots. he could shoot consistantly within a few feet of a "pin" and shot more than one "hole in one's" at most tournaments. looked instinctive as all get out, but he had an aiming system for even as far as his bow could shoot a given arrow. and he was glad to help you learn to do that.
i helped a young neighbor learn to rope calves and steers again after he went blind. we put a bell on the calf or steer and he threw his loop at the sound. he was a pretty good hand before he lost his sight, but it took a long time for him to be able to tell how his loop was shaped and get the feel of where it was at all times and longer still to learn to gauge distance by sound and "feel" alone.
i don't know what is truly instinctive in humans. suckling, for sure, but even newborns can pick up on voice and facial clues and learn behaviors at an amazingly early stage.
if you are shooting how you shoot and you are hitting what and where you want to hit, then you should just relax and enjoy it! sometimes too much information ruins the fun!

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 01:29 AM

Larry,

I believe that how much you need to think things through depends on personality. The same goes for the degree of methodical strictness in thought. Some people require a more systematic approach than others. But that doesn't turn less formal, less verbal or even less 'intense' thinking into non-thinking or sub-conscious learning.

When people tell me that one can keep one's conscious mind out of the actual mechanics of aiming during the learning phase, I don't accuse them of dishonesty at all. But I do think they misread their own history. Perhaps some get by with very fleeting conscious thought and awareness, while others prefer to explore issues in greater depth than strictly necessary. But think we all will! Whether we formalise it and commit it to verbal memory or not.

In the end, certain types might not remember much about the discovery and correction process that led to their aiming systems. Therefore, there won't be much they can explain to others. But that doesn't prove that they learnt everything subconsciously - in fact, I don't think the latter explanation possible at all.

That's where I differ so basically from many instinctive shooters that there's no point in having the discussion. I'm aware that one can only provoke people to fury by implying that they describe their own experiences falsely. But since I believe that to be the case, there's not much else I can imply. And since they believe the opposite, they and I won't easily have an exchange worth having.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-15-2007, 03:11 AM

Well Martin Loggerheads already!

Ah the Oh this again! Well some people like simply to get to the bottom of things and it does not mean we don’t enjoy what we do and we rarely let our proactive pursuits of the seemingly unexplainable (at least to some) get in the way of that, we just like answers, discussions (not arguments).

I believe that how much you need to think things through depends on personality. The same goes for the degree of methodical strictness in thought. Some people require a more systematic approach than others
Great post Martin – lets try to smooth the way!

I therefore sympathize with both sides (multi sides even) and understand the fear some people have in finding out they are not a member of the elite(1), what else would DETER someone from seeking the truth, oh well there are a few that just think its pointless (I wonder why(1)) there are those that cant be bothered because they know (or at least think) they are Instinctive*, and then there are those that truly think this is a waste of time and could be doing something better instead – some of which I can understand are earnest for there reasoning.

The main discussion blocker as far as I can see is: Where the instinctive ability comes from!
It was not my intention to include this topic rather how it is performed, but lets try to lay a common path through uneven ground, so both sides can progress (both sides that are then willing to talk)

At the beginning of time, the first life existed, now as we weren’t there at the time it is speculative to say whether or not this life form had instincts (a debate not unlike our own discussion blocker)
If an organism it may ore may not have had a brain for thought processing (a discussion for another time) so lets liken this example to what we know, and not all will agree with (se-la-vee)
The life form had a brain for processing thought and could learn from then forward:

NOW forget scientific definitions or that other thread for the moment, this is an archer’s discussion on the true belief of archery (by the way I am a Believer!!!), the life-form learns, it learns so hard it forgets it learned, it learns so hard it does not need to consciously remember why it learned it, evolution takes place, what was learned (core ability) gets passed on, more evolution, more passing on, Instincts, lets not argue, is it in the brain or genetic coding, there they are and that’s it.

So lets not get hung up on what we consciously learn today yesterday, or last year, as one day it may all be classified as a basis for some instinctual behavior!

As for, can the subconscious mind learning things! Lets pose subliminal Television clips, you don’t consciously see them their impression now resides in your brain, they have imprinted something there, of you go to the local Wall Mart and buy whatever.
So your brain can retain knowledge that escapes the conscious part (for a time at least) is this learning (I really don’t want to get hung up on these points).

Then we have the we did not have the ability at birth theorists the reactivists, no one said we were born to shoot a bow, but there are underlying abilities! That’s what we are alluding to! Yes we are a thinking animal, but at what stage if any does this play a part in truly Instinctive* shooting, the answer seekers like me just want the big picture and the only way I can see of doing it is piece by piece?

Larry – Hip shooting, would have been great to get Walt’s feedback…..

Jeff I like it, somebody has been paying attention* like the grip contribution - great

Higlander - a Mystified Truth seeker on the path of enlightenment!

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 03:28 AM

So lets not get hung up on what we consciously learn today yesterday, or last year, as one day it may all be classified as a basis for some instinctual behavior!

Highlander,

I far as I can follow, the notion of not even learning consciously is pivotal to some people's understanding of instinctive aiming and its advantages. And I think they are right in one respect - it's the only definition of instinctive shooting worth discussing.

I don't think many people would dispute that blatantly conscious aiming can become automatic over time, especially gapping.

In my opinion, an automatic process is nothing special. It's something that does the job for us in many spheres of life. We consciously learnt how to ride a bicycle or swim, for instance. Now, we do it automatically.

For instinctive shooting to be worth talking about at all, it would need to be more than simple automation of a formerly 'conscious' process. That's a phenomenon too common to merit much discussion.

The principle of training the subconscious mind without training the conscious mind first is the aspect I regard as pivotal in the instinctive debate. Once again: I don't believe it can actually happen that way. Others say it can. So I say they're misreading things. So they say I'm no judge of their awareness processes. So... see the dead end?

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-15-2007, 04:15 AM

Martin I appreciate that agreement on the grounding principals, of whether learning consciously or otherwise is tantamount to a good discussion on archery but I was not aware to this point it was only Aiming that necessitated the classification of being an instinctive* archer.

Lets for argument sake forgo everything else then all we can claim to be is instinctive aimers. Thus we could narrow it even further (a blinkered approach and something may slip through?)

We are conscious of everything consciously oservable being the learned thinking animal we are, and suddenly for a few: we get that warm feeling its right, bang on the spot, there may be a few that can replicate this seemingly unexplainable feature time and time again.

Is this what being an instinctive* archer (aimer) is all about? That one little feeling? Or are there other events, happenings ingrained programming (for want of better terms) that take place?

If that fuzzy feeling and only that, I would have to say the thread is not worth contributing to further, as you say it could happen in all walks of life.

If we look at it in those terms then as long as one applies something instinctual* to archery he is an instinctive* archer

I would like to think there was more to it than that?

We may be missing the whole point hence the statement said previously - Ah this Again!

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 05:09 AM

Highlander,

The reason the discussion can't happen fruitfully is because people are sometimes unreliable reporters of their own experiences, despite being honest. I think we can all agree on that, if we consider the following sentence:

"No, you didn't see a caravan of nomads on camels in the distance. It was a mirage."

Not a statement likely to offend an educated person. But there are other types of statement, such as this one:

"No, you don't love your wife. You've persuaded yourself that you do, but you don't."

The second statement is clearly presumptuous to the point of being insulting. Even if the addressee were unaware of the real truth, there is no way anyone else would be a better judge of it.

The question in our context is this: Are reports of purely subconscious learning in archery reliable or not? Depending on what you believe and what you think you have experienced, you may well take a "no" as an insult.

Again: It's hard to have a constructive discussion when one side perceives the other's view as an insult... and understandably so, as I'll admit despite being one of those who routinely issues that 'insult'.

It boils down to answering the basic question for yourself and then proceeding from there. Instinctive and non-instinctive shooters can talk about many common experiences like the warm "it's bang on" feeling you described. But they can't discuss the fundamentals of learning to aim.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-15-2007, 05:39 AM

In the light of the recent submission to this thread and after a nice stroll for dinner, I can now see why more people think along those lines and how justifiably they can call themselves:

Instinctive* Gap shooter
Instinctive* split vision shooter
Instinctive* anything….

And who can argue/debate otherwise

But if the premise of being an instinctive archer is aiming what of non aiming archers, lets put it in other terms:

A blind or blindfolded archer receiving instruction on the first arrow and attempting replication thereafter?

Ok it’s still some form of aiming I here you say just not done with the eyes.

Lets say then something like flight shooting:
Over a hill
Off a cliff
The results are relayed by a friend from the other end!
You cant see and don’t really need to see where the arrow is going its for distance only, the background is irrelevant maybe a point of aim cant be set!

Well then all you have is replication of pose/stance, you are then told to break for Chow, its all back to the shoot from a different standing, you are told you have three arrows for a shootout, can you replicate your stance to win I think something would take over and you would be in with a shout!

For us to say this new form of non-aiming (sighting) archer (after time somebody would try to get an aiming system) has no instinctive* style would be ludicrous!

Before this post is inundated with why/s and why/not replies, please dream up you’re own non-aiming archery event that initially has no aiming technique!

Who knows a new style may be born?

Then you as a participant would have to rely on something other than Aiming (visually at a point), instinctively to win it!

There are other factors that are instinctive* to archery

If the completely instinctive seasoned archer is out there no wonder he is Laughing!
It may be he can’t even remember picking up the bow, but the buck is still lying there in front of him breathless!

The closest I could liken this Heroic form to would be an uncultured child shooting of his first few arrows, from then in part at least, he is on the gravy trail downwards, to attain replication of ideas!

Critical sometimes life threaten situations spur on the fuzziness leading to the everyday 100% instinctual shot!

Can this be explained in fragmenting archer’s style and exploring the taboo areas of archery, only we can decide?

To explain the unexplainable is nothing more than a reclasification!

H

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 05:49 AM

...an uncultured child shooting of his first few arrows...

Highlander,

Without exception: All children I have given a bow to will point the first shot at the spot and shoot too high. They will then incorporate that experience into their second shot, with most of them asking how much beneath the spot to shoot.

So they're certainly not instinctive - but following human nature. The latter having a tendency to think.

People trying to teach instinctive aiming will generally explicitly instruct you to avoid conscious correction. They too realise that human nature is to think and draw conscious conclusions from experience. But for the case in hand, they tell you to work around doing so.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-15-2007, 06:36 AM

Brilliant Martin!

But have you ever thought of why?

All children I have given a bow to will point the first shot at the spot

They no nothing of anchor influences, very little in conscious trajectory calculations, they will liken it to other experiences they have, throwing a ball:

Try explaining to yourself first how much adjustment you have to do to get your second ball through the hoop (good luck) after a miss.

The key here is you are starting the culture before they have even taken their first shot:

There is the target hit the centre (something like that), take that away, shoot at the hill side and perceive what there Uncultured mind does, there is no conscious confines other than their own applied to them and what ever else is sub-lying!

This is what I was portraying in the statement, YES it is not the essence of what we seasoned individuals deem to be instinctive but it’s as close as we can get on the explanation ladder thus far, hence

the closest I can liken it to

Also if you told the kid he had to go up not down what do you think he would have thought, what would something in his belly be telling him, he would be confused, why?

Try telling some adult archers if they are shooting high to move there sights up, a few wont get it first time why, in goes against something that’s hardwired at a higher level.

The kid comparison was only intended to show bare bones (as close to non thinking) results; interference by others, at any time of the initial shoot other than safety measures would upset the apple cart..

H.

Highlander

11-15-2007, 07:18 AM

Jeff Durnell

11-15-2007, 07:27 AM

Martin, we disagree sure. I know what I know, you think I don't, because if I did, you'd be wrong. That's fine. It changes nothing on my end :^)

I've never said that I learned to shoot instinctively without involving my conscious mind at all. I DO contend that I never consciously referenced or altered anything in the sight picture to the target to bring the arrow to the mark... meaning, every aiming 'mechanic' mustn't(necessarily) be consciously learned first.

I consciously thought about how some aspects of my form might be affecting my consistency and consciously made alterations. I consciously took note of where my arrows landed after each shot, but did not consciously reference or correct anything directly related to aiming in succeeding shots. It was unnecessary. All conscious thought was used to focus on the mark. The conscious mind did not have to be trained first where to hold anything in the sight picture, or it in its entirety, in reference to the target. It didn't, and doesn't know to this day where things are in relation to the target.... that's always been the job of the subconscious, until I encroach on my point-on range and stuff gets in the way. Within my instinctive* range though, if I consciously looked at my arrow, hand, bow, or whatever, and tried to reference it/them to the mark while aiming, I would not know where to hold it in relation to the target to place an accurate shot.... after I shot a few arrows, sure, I'd figure it out, but my point is, my conscious mind's never been aware of it, or needed to be.

You believe the subconscious cannot receive and act on input stimuli without the conscious mind doing it all first and effectively saying, "Here, like this, this is how it's done." But how I learned to shoot instinctively* proves for me that you are mistaken.

Highlander, don't run too far with Martin's ball. He's too selective, reinventive, to suit his arguments, to a fault. The whole instinctive 'thing' took years to boil down to all that he's clutching now.

Instinctive shooting/aiming is... shooting/aiming without a conscious reference. It's that simple... regardless of how one got there. Transposing fuzzy feelings and elitism and such onto a method should be avoided if we're going to have a rational, objective discussion about its workings.

Highlander

11-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Jeff

A very inducive reply!

I think I am not running with Martins Ball, as said previously I am a believer! I do not need to follow one side or the other I am just trying to logically explain differences and keep the forum on track, the Fuzzy factor was introduced to this thread in response to Martins statement

“I far as I can follow, the notion of not even learning consciously is pivotal to some people's understanding of instinctive aiming and its advantages. And I think they are right in one respect - it's the only definition of instinctive shooting worth discussing.”

I believe there is more than meets the eye in this debate and have tried to provide examples to keep the track from narrowing, the last few posts were in direct relation to Martin’s inputs, but now I will have a look at the other side!

“Martin, we disagree sure. I know what I know; you think I don't, because if I did, you'd be wrong. That's fine. It changes nothing on my end :^)“

That is good!

But if you believe in sub-conscious intervention (instinctive shooting) you would not consciously know what you think you know (the conscious and sub conscious have no conscious link) on top of what you consciously know, Martin would not know what you thought you new or what you had unintentialy not relayed as known as he would!

I can see this leads to conjecture as is plain to see, and both of you are saying this!

You then state you see the target – a conscious part

“I DO contend that I never consciously referenced or altered anything in the sight picture to the target to bring the arrow to the mark”

How do you now you are bringing the arrow to the mark?
Do you see the arrow in the sight picture?

Other conscious possibilities!

So what you may be saying is you are a Instinctive (X) Aimer if you see the target and arrow? that is the most it can be in that case, and the (X) could be a plethora of subconscious techniques peppering this site!

Now it would seem to me I have heard something like this before, the great Howard Hill’s system, and what adjustment he made if the first arrow did not hit the mark, now if this is subconscious like the throwing the ball example in a previous post in a split vision set up you could be on to a winner:

Conscious target sighting
Sub-conscious Arrow sighting
Conscious (sub-conscious even) first arrow
Subconscious adjustments

I believe in the possibility they could exist, but it revolves around whether you see the arrow or not in your sight picture..

“You believe the subconscious cannot receive and act on input stimuli”

I think my post agrees with you

“As for, can the subconscious mind learning things! Lets pose subliminal Television clips, you don’t consciously see them their impression now resides in your brain, they have imprinted something there, of you go to the local Wall Mart and buy whatever.”

Lastly

“Instinctive shooting/aiming is... shooting/aiming without a conscious reference. It's that simple... regardless of how one got there. Transposing fuzzy feelings and elitism and such onto a method should be avoided if we're going to have a rational, objective discussion about its workings.”

For you, you now don’t regard how you got to this point, but the point of the forum is to route out an explanation for just that!

The fuzzy feeling is still present for certain individuals; certainty of hitting the mark even as the arrow flies to the target maybe even before its loosed! You may not get it but to deny its existence puts you in the same state as Martin, debating your take on the matter because you don’t experience the fact – keep an open mind as all should!

Rename Fuzzy with whatever term you like but put an explanation to it, don’t just disregard it, if you cant somebody out here may!

The transposition of fuzzy feelings from your point is only the misunderstanding of intellectual capture on ours; can you explain the subconscious process you use and pass it on, or is it a bit Fuzzy?

“Transposing fuzzy feelings and elitism and such onto a method”

The use of the word Method would lead to another debate I think, but for now it can fall under the Instinctive* umbrella! As for being Elite members of anything if that is your meaning? I for one am not!

Just meagerly seeking the truth!

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 08:59 AM

Highlander, don't run too far with Martin's ball. He's too selective, reinventive... Instinctive shooting/aiming is... shooting/aiming without a conscious reference. It's that simple... regardless of how one got there.

Jeff,

As far as I'm concerned you can merge the two topics (automated aiming and 'subconsciously learnt' aiming) into one... it's not my baby. I just don't think there's much insight to be gained from treating flying fish as birds. :)

Highlander,

If you ask me, there's more to be learnt by forgetting concepts such as the conscious and subconscious minds (simplifications anyway) and simply accepting that the brain has a gift for dumb, yet faithful automation. Teaching it what to automate is part of what makes a good archer, imo. Lessons should be as efficient as possible. Whether analysis of aiming efforts and their results seems an efficient policy to you, as it does to me, is for you to decide.

If you want my honest opinion, it's this: Setting out to become an instinctive archer via the subconcious learning theory is often a glorified attempt to avoid tedium like distance estimation, gap/crawl/POA exploration and boring memorisation of your findings. But the latter works pretty well, once you settle down to work on it. It eventually also leads to a degree of automation that is sufficiently satisfying.

The lure of the less formal approach is significant though, and has been felt by most barebow archers at some time or other. Rejecting scientific evidence against the instinctive learning theory is a reaction to that lure, I think.

Back to my own stance: Automation is interesting. And the fuzzy feelings that accompany it are worth noticing. Perhaps I didn't make myself very plain on that last point. I just don't think automation is specific to the instinctive debate.

Best,

Martin

Jeff Durnell

11-15-2007, 09:45 AM

"How do you know you are bringing the arrow to the mark?
Do you see the arrow in the sight picture?"

Do I see it? It's there and I'm not blind, so yeah, l see it just like I see the ground, sky, and a multitude of other things, but do I consciously reference it, or anything else to the mark? No.

But let's back up for a moment.... By 'bringing the arrow to the mark' I meant that the arrow's point of impact is closing in on the spot I'm aiming at on each successive shot, not that it's being consciously used to aim in any fashion. Since you misunderstood, I won't bother responding to your farther-reaching dissection of my statement.

The 'subconscious process' as you put it, is simply allowing the necessary aiming adjustments to the sight picture to be made subconsciously while dedicating all conscious thought to focusing entirely on the target while aiming.

I misunderstood the use of the term 'fuzzy feeling', I thought it was used mean that fuzzy feeling of elitism some get because they're 'instinctive shooters'. So, we won't pursue that any farther either.

Jeff Durnell

11-15-2007, 10:12 AM

"Lessons should be as efficient as possible."

Exactly why I taught myself to shoot instinctively the way I did... and why I got there in weeks rather than the months or YEARS it would have likely taken had I wasted time and effort learning and applying things that I didn't need. Assigning numerical values to yardage and consciously recognizing/memorizing gaps and how they pertain to those consciously estimated distances, using p.o.a., etc, and hoping, "eventually" that it leads to instinctive* shooting.

Lessons should be as efficient as possible. Indeed.

Martin Farrent

11-15-2007, 10:22 AM

That's okay, Jeff.

If it got you where you want to be, it's fine.

I tried 'pointing', which isn't instinctive, but does somewhat eliminate yardage estimation at shorter distances. It wasn't consistent enough for me.

Now, I stringwalk. If I use my 15 meter crawl and aim 1" low, I will hit the kill zone of a deer at any distance up to 18 yards - provided I shoot well. No distance estimation, but nothing hidden away in the subconscious either. Just plain physics. I can't really imagine anything much easier.

I don't do it, because I'm a target shooter and can take my time. But it would work fine. No need to train for things I might not master, hey?

Best,

Martin

Jeff Durnell

11-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Right. And the same back atcha, if what you do suits you... good for you, really. I'm happy that you're happy :)

Desert Archer

11-15-2007, 12:40 PM

The kid example in pieces:

He knows nothing about style he has no instruction, just their it is, shoot it!

He picks up the bow, how does he grip it, instinctively*
He picks out an arrow, instinctively*
He knocks the arrow on the string, instinctively*

All this and he does it with his right hand and left eye dominant

Then he draws, instinctively*
Then aims looking along the arrow (cross bodied) at eye level, instinctively*
He looses his fist grip on the bow-string, instinctively*

And the arrow is on its course to who knows where!

This is as close as it gets in the terms of the previous post, and the initial arrow, is as good as it gets; at least until a very few can attain the fuzzy factor later on in years…..

can this be explained in adults - Ah that is what this post, may be trying to capture?

H.

Highlander, I just had to respond to the above. Please don't take offense or think I'm arguing for or against "instinctive". This is just observation.

One of the ranges I go to has JOAD and biginner classes on Saturday mornings. A good many of the kids I see there, and some of the adults, appear like me to have no instinct for this stuff. They don't know how to grasp the bow, load the arrow, pull the string (anchor?) or let go. And the result, unlike what you stated, sometimes isn't even on it's course. It is really something to watch.

Dave

longbowguy

11-15-2007, 10:02 PM

I 't have time right now, or the inclination for a lengthy response, or to read all of the above.

Just recall that nobody claims to have sprung from the womb with the innate ability to shoot a bow or throw a ball. We don't mean 'instinctive' in that sense. Maybe it is not the right word, but it is the word we have and it has been in common use this way for many decades. If you don't like the word translate it in your mind to one you prefer, 'subconsciously', if you like.

I can't analyze it or tell you how I do it because it is SUBCONCIOUS! If I try to think about it it goes away and I miss. Those of us who are regular practitioners are often careful not to think or talk too much about the process for fear of losing the knack. If you haven't the knack, aim another way. Those of us who have the knack will keep using and enjoying it.

And make no mistake about this: some who can do it... can do it very well.

In the 'Wizard of Oz' Judy Garland asked the showman to stop his balloon. He said "I can't stop it, I don't know how it works." I don't know how I aim (at the short and middle ranges) but I usually can hit what I aim at.

Martin Farrent

11-16-2007, 01:32 AM

I can't analyze it or tell you how I do it because it is SUBCONCIOUS! If I try to think about it it goes away and I miss. Those of us who are regular practitioners are often careful not to think or talk too much about the process for fear of losing the knack. If you haven't the knack, aim another way. Those of us who have the knack will keep using and enjoying it.

Highlander,

This is a perfect example of my original point. You can't have this debate, because people like LBG have a legitimate argument. In their view, to analyse is to break (at worst) and futile (at best). That's a logical consequence of their belief in purely subconscious aiming.

Okay, so I don't buy their premise... and shouldn't the existence of two opposing views make debate feasible? In this rare type of case, I'd say the answer is no. The reason is that nobody is interested in an abstract debate, which would start outside the realm of archery and concentrate on learning in general - and in which I, or Jeff and LBG might be persuaded to concede 'defeat'.

Meaning (strangely): You can't discuss instinctive shooting until you have decided whether it exists. And even then, you can only constructively discuss it with people who share your basic view - taking the sub-topics from there. It's like asking 100% atheists and 100% deists to debate the existence of God - a pointless exercise.

For a more fruitful debate to take place, an element of doubt (agnosticism) would be needed. Those of us who entertain no such doubts aren't suitable participants. Our respective views are summed up in a few lines. And then it's for others to measure such views against their own experiences... thereby making up their minds and disqualifying themselves for any debate on the issue (just as LBG, Jeff and I ought to be disqualified). :)

That's why there are resources for people who favour one side of this debate and other resources for people on the other side. You take your pick and start learning. If you think you've backed the wrong horse, you switch.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-16-2007, 02:10 PM

Well Martin the only reason it appears I am running with the Ball (yours?) to this point, is because up to now you were the main player wishing to talk its that simple, you have have kept an open mind throughout, an opinion on the subliminal example and subconscious may have deserved your analysis as will a few more to come in this reply it was directed against your subsonscious learning disbelief!

“If you ask me, there's more to be learnt by forgetting concepts such as the conscious and subconscious minds (simplifications anyway) and simply accepting that the brain has a gift for dumb, yet faithful automation”

Ah we do disagree on this point, it is never better to forget a main point of the other side of a debate (Subconscious) and I would certainly not call it a concept, but that is my opinion, and I believe Jeff is one of the few tentative individuals trying to give it a go and it is the basis of his belief in his Shooting ability (or he believes it to be so) I am not answering this thread to upset anyone , but as your previous statements show no matter what is written people can take it how they SEE it!

If it is the Aiming portion you are after and its Secret in the part of the Dumb Automaton Brain well so be it, there is a start and an end to anything started! There will be a bit of debate to the automatic conjecture of the brain I would say, but others can pick that up, I think there has been enough side tracking for now!

Sure we are all lured to what we cant accept or explain or just shy away from and there are others like Longbowguy with the best evidence of an opinion I have seen so far as why not to speak on the subject, but for those that wish to talk should we not try a little longer, throwing it to one side yet again PROVES nothing. I think Jeff would agree he has learnt some of his ability by practising, as was said he was not born with the ability to shoot a bow, Desert archers experiences with youngsters would seem to prove this in part, not all are born equal to equally perform at an expected degree in anything! Some kids can and some kids can’t, so Jeff would have learnt something Scientifically I don’t think that’s part of the debate, he impresses that its only the Aiming part that is not consciously gained the rest is Scientific Physics (in your terms)? The automated part eludes me at this time in the Instinctive portion of the debate as I don’t see clearly one way or the other, other than the process up to and after the aim (subconscious aim - Example)

We have agreement on both sides!!!!!!!!!!! The Fuzzy feeling………………

But from a very defensive Jeff:
I don’t know you Jeff and for me to merely assume you were not blind by the weighty indications of typing, you shooting a bow, using the seeing the target expressives would be the approach I would not take for finding the truth!

Registered blind does not mean one has no sight!
Ever seen the magician make the statue of liberty disappear, you could not see it, were you blind, it was still there!

I am not the enemy here as nobody seeking the truth is! I hope the above is clarity I did not misunderstand anything you wrote I merely indicated further clarity was required! I made a comparison of similar ability which people have been dissecting for years, even HH probably did not explain/relay his aptitude 100% and yes he may have shot like you! By overlooking the slightest fragment changes the answer!

If you can relay the Instinctive AIM in as short a time as you learnt it would that not be a lesson worth teaching?

"Lessons should be as efficient as possible."

“Lessons should be as efficient as possible. Indeed.”

Lessons should be as effective as possible! Efficiency can be sacrificial!

What suits one may suit another why keep it a secret?

“to analyse is to break (at worst) and futile (at best). That's a logical consequence of their belief in purely subconscious aiming.”

To analyse and prove it and that it has no conscious link now that is something else the futility will be long forgotten by some!

Subconscious or not:

Ever watched someone being hypnotised, told to do something stupid (start a discussion on Instinctive archery for example – only kidding!) they then are brought round and cant remember a thing!

Is this stored somewhere in the Brains subconscious , why cant we consciously remember it?
It they were Programmed (leaving myself wide open using that word) to respond to a phrase, acted it through then could not remember it happening, is this subconscious action?

Things can be planted in the brain without our knowing and brains and some senses can be deceived!

I for one would like to learn Instinctive* teachings if someone out there is willing to teach! I think I wont be alone on that one!

Remember a debate is substantiated, and proofs, conclusions and follow ups are all a part of it, to simply throw Manure in each others direction or to not look at the big picture and keep an open mind is counter productive; the only way forward then would be for hard evidence to be declared and debated, counter proofs stated and so on. The alternative is to stay silent, that would suit, them that have it, it is us that would live in wonder or could we just fool ourselves into disbelief, it seems so!

If the process is seen as win and defeat then it is a narrow minded approach indeed and to liken it to Godly founding’s is a gross over rating, better leave that side of the conflict to cupid, (he could do with shooting a few arrows at this thread!)

Martin I can not see how the discussion would be outside archery if you cant prove and do not believe in the existence of subconscious intervention in the first place, for your side of the debate it is easy to say we need to prove it exists first, but if you are willing to back a winner then let go of the loser, the same can be said for all sides (if they see it as win, loose) but when do you let go, when you have enough information to see the result and that is very seldom at the start, is it a fruitless exercise? well for some it may be!

Unless we are God (what have you started) then we are inherently doubtful , or you or I would not be responding to this thread, as the fear of defeat would indicate!

Anyone not wishing to participate need not and need not make any excuses!

Please point me in the direction in the best resources for enlightenment and we can lay this thread to rest as so often is the case.

“That's why there are resources for people who favour one side of this debate and other resources for people on the other side. You take your pick and start learning. If you think you've backed the wrong horse, you switch.”

I do not have a side and hence do not need to switch, to believe in something is not a side and to find out your belief has been reclassified does not deny its existance!

H

Martin Farrent

11-16-2007, 02:59 PM

Highlander,

I really think this is very simple.

I (and many others) do not believe in the subconscious learning theory behind instinctive shooting. We believe mainstream scientists who dismiss it. We largely believe them because our experience supports that view.

See? We believe scientists, but we believe them for reasons that are actually not all that scientific - in fact, they are subjective (our experience, we have no other).

Jeff and LBG (for example) would disagree with those mainstream scientists and base their disagreement on... yep... experience.

Therefore, my view has no greater claim to objectivity than Jeff's. On the other hand, it's no less tolerant - though it may sound so. While I arrogantly claim that he misreads his own experience, he might equally arrogantly claim that mine is insufficient to say anything about the topic at all (perhaps I lack "the knack", as LBG puts it).

And that's where our arguments start chasing each other around in circles. If Jeff is the victim of a mental mirage, how can he judge the sufficiency of my experience? If my experience is insufficient, how can I maintain that Jeff's is miraged?

I prefer to think that neither Jeff nor LBG nor I are being arrogant about this, but simply arguing from different backgrounds. Just as I suspect Jeff's view of being incomplete, he will think the same about mine.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating... scores, if you like. But even they don't prove much, because who's to say what else is equal or unequal? This being a pleasurable pastime, the real proof is in the satisfaction we get from doing what we believe is right for us.

That doesn't stop us having opinions on other people's methods and preferences. It just qualifies those opinions a bit.

Best,

Martin

rusty craine

11-16-2007, 07:29 PM

LOL - the bow and arrow has been around 10,000 yrs. I think I like the magic theorybest. If I carve a wooden fetish in the light of the camp fire, give the right incantation, and walk out of my tent backward in the morning to fool the spirits, the meat is in the bag. :)

I think it is magic.........I can promise ya sinew is magic :)

rusty

jdupre'

11-17-2007, 05:03 AM

On the subject of throwing or catching an object as being instinctive--have you ever thrown a ball to a girl or guy that was not brought up playing any of the "ball sports"? To say they are awkward would be an understatement.

Later Joey

Joe -->

11-17-2007, 09:05 AM

Humans learn to walk as babies. Birds learn to fly. Infant animals learn to hunt. They learn to improve on what started as a instinctive impulse. They practice. Instinct does not guarantee accuracy or perfection, or results. Those that do not have natural talent , or do not practice extensively, may not get a chance to mate. My scores would improve if great sex was the prize.

rusty craine

11-17-2007, 10:01 AM

LOL Joe, ya see how those instincts kick right in when ya don't over think the process :).

rusty

longbowguy

11-17-2007, 10:51 PM

So, Joe:
You think instinctive archers get more opportunity to mate? Well, thinking back..........maybe I need to advertise. LBG

Martin Farrent

11-18-2007, 09:34 AM

You think instinctive archers get more opportunity to mate?

More opportunity, but less time, LBG.

You have to practice more (archery, that is). Stringwalkers and gappers spend a lot of time hanging out in ice-cream parlours. Some days, the instincters need to practice so much that they don't turn up. That's when the girls reluctantly talk to us mortals.

So overall, your genes and mine have an equal chance of success. :)

Best,

Martin

Jeff Durnell

11-18-2007, 09:40 AM

I've never seen an instinctive shooter claim that true 'instinct', in its strictest sense, is how the arrow is aimed, and yet, that's what most critics belabor, or eventually return to as a base in their 'debates', the terminology….over, and over.

Instinctive shooting was previously known as ‘intuitive aiming’… and perhaps for good reason. Perhaps it was more representative of the method, which would be better ‘received’ if the term was still used today. Instinct and intuition aren’t one and the same.

Instinct. This is thought to be inherited intelligence unique to a particular species. Like a hard disc with information on it before it leaves the factory. For example, a bird knows to sing a certain song, and a dog knows to growl when angry. Humans instinctively know to suckle when infants. I don’t see how instinct, in the strictest sense, has much at all to do with shooting a bow or aiming an arrow. Maybe it should renamed Intuitive Aiming. It kind of has a ring to it.

Intuitive Intelligence. Intuition is an extremely important and powerful form of intelligence used to learn complex skills and solve problems on a subconscious basis; for example, a child learning to speak without learning a single rule of grammar. The rules of grammar actually were learned, but the child cannot tell you what they are. (Like how accurate windage and elevation can be learned by an instinctive/intuitive shooter, and yet he cannot tell you how many yards distant the target is, and doesn’t know how high/left/right he holds). This type of intelligence is particularly powerful at picking up patterns in a seemingly chaotic situation. Important: Intuitive intelligence is better at solving certain types of ‘complex’ problems than our conscious, sensory intelligence. ‘Complex’ perhaps as on-the-fly assessments and determinations during a fluid shooting process on a moving target would be?

Sensory Intelligence. Sensory intelligence is our ability to think logically and to learn new facts in our world. It refers to the brain’s ability to consciously notice and process observations. As children grow, their ability to learn intuitively appears to decrease as they’re taught to think more methodically and logically. Sensory intelligence is what we normally think of as “intelligence”, generically, because it is conscious thinking, while the other two types are more ‘mysterious’ and subsequently discounted.

Intuitive intelligence is used to identify relationships and concepts while sensory intelligence is used in remembering details and linear thinking. Everyone possesses all three types, though some may be more adept at one than the other(s). The intuitor quickly gets an accurate feel for what to try next, while the person with predominant sensory intelligence lacks this advantage and wants detailed written instructions or someone to teach them each new thing they do. Intuitors are different in how they perceive and retain information. Their memories are often impressionistic and lacking detail, but more often get the big picture. They are also good at coming up with ideas, concepts, and relationships that others miss.

It’s easy enough to see why certain shooting methods, or routes to them, are better for some folks than others, better for some applications than others, how different equipment choices can better suit some…. and how the others’ practicality toward archery(very subjective) can be misunderstood from where one stands. No one is best for all.

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the power of all true science.
~ Albert Einstein

:inst

Joe -->

11-18-2007, 09:50 AM

But the real question is which approach to mating would bring you more frequent success. Can you instinctively adapt to varied locations and satisfy the needs of your mate in a variety of positions or are you a stickler for rigid unvarying form and can only or will only shoot from the exact same position. Obviously instinctive wins. Instinctive archers get to loose more arrows. They don't call it a woodie for nothing.

Joe -->

11-18-2007, 09:57 AM

Jeff, I've been meaning to say exactly what you said. But you've done a much better job than I would have. Its intuitive, peculiar to the human species. Is driving a car instinctive? Why do all vehicles have steering wheels?

rusty craine

11-18-2007, 04:14 PM

I personally enjoy these thread - if the are as well debated as this one is. I learn sumpin every time and they always give me pause for thought and relfection.

Thanks for you post Jeff. Insightful.

rusty

Jeff Durnell

11-18-2007, 06:06 PM

No problem dudes. I feel compelled on ocassion.

The defining qualities of these forms of intellegence make it seem quite 'natural' or 'fitting' then how some folks(leaning more to the sensory side of the pendulum perhaps) feel the need to be shown 'detailed written instruction, or 'logic' of how instinctive shooting works.... and why so many who shoot instinctively(leaning more toward the intuitive intellegence side perhaps) are almost always uninclined to do so.... it's how they're each wired. Combined, adding to 'mysticism' thing for the former.

Martin Farrent

11-18-2007, 10:52 PM

The defining qualities of these forms of intellegence make it seem quite 'natural' or 'fitting' then how some folks(leaning more to the sensory side of the pendulum perhaps) feel the need to be shown 'detailed written instruction, or 'logic' of how instinctive shooting works.... and why so many who shoot instinctively(leaning more toward the intuitive intellegence side perhaps) are almost always uninclined to do so.... it's how they're each wired.

Jeff,

Quite apart from the instinctive debate, I have always had a problem defining people as 'types'... not accusing you personally of anything here, but it's a great way to sell popular psychology books. "I'm a Z type," can be a boast or an excuse, both of which are marketable commodities. That type of thinking and self-assessment has become widespread via a group of people who advocate it for a reason.

One funny example of people acting outside such classification attempts are artists. I've known a few good painters and almost all have been very eloquent and able to discuss their own 'messages' without undue fog. I've also known a good many mediocre painters, who won't talk about their work at all... preferring to issue mumblings about things like 'intuition' and 'inspiration'.

Re intuition: It mostly builds on information that has been gathered and processed previously, and to a lesser extent on spontaneous information relevant to the problem at hand. Example: I'm more likely to be intuitive about a vehicle repair if I have repaired a lot of vehicles beforehand. Science showcases the need to combine what you have called sensory and intuitive intelligence excellently. To initiate a leap forward in physics, for instance, you will need plenty of both. Intuition will get you nowhere, if you lack the faintest idea of the topic matter and the current challenges.

Closer to our topic: Instinctive shooters often overlook the role of intuition in other styles. That role is kept purposely limited in gapping, for instance, but not because intuition is negated. Some people find the tool most effective when its scope is clearly defined.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-19-2007, 07:41 AM

intuitive aiming

Jeff I did not realize this was the case; when was this description popular, was it universal and did the instinctive term exist as a predecessor?

The I* word was never under debate for at least a few that read the forum and any rhetorical responses certainly did not impact on my readings! But the worry of such infiltration is always present and worrying.

My views on Instincts are already on this site and I don’t think it worth mentioning again here, as it was never the intention to cover the topic! Your entry though, has certainly spurred on the best content thus far to enter the forum!

How does Martin see your un-awareness, non-conscious automated thinking (Intuitive) is he in agreement – I have omitted the Sub preclusive to one of the above word’s as I do not agree it pertains directly as implied by your writing, but others would and proof either way would be inconclusive and diverse?

Intuition and Sensory have something in common and probably overlap somewhat and although Sensory intelligence is readily understood I think that Intuitive is only next in complexity to instinctive, so to explain one of the latter two is a task indeed!

I think people have different understandings of the term Intuitive some like Jeff and his definition and some like Martin and his derivation, therefore if neither delve to deeply into understanding the term then there may some common ground at last.

Lets not get lost in semantics!

Both agree intuition exists, both agree the information is stored in the grey matter up top, so lets not get held up with how it got there, how can we:

All tap into the Intuitive learning curve and overcome cognitive thought?

Jeff how long were you shooting before you became instinctive* (an Intuitive Aimer)?

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” SH

Jeff Durnell

11-20-2007, 03:48 PM

Martin, no it isn't what the debate is 'aimied at', but it's relevant, and I'm willing to bet is the root of why certain folks are more apt to 'debate' it at all... why they demand strict definitions and a written, specificly itemized process, in the first place. They can't help it, it's how they're wired. Folks who gravitate more naturally to instinctive shooting, by no surprise, don't over-analize, itimize, or belabor it as such for the same reason.

I agree that there are no distinct lines, or fully encompassing catagories for what 'type' of mind each of us has, or what type of thinking we apply. It's not that cut and dry. Like I said, each of us likely utilizes all of the various 'types' of thinking or intellegence... but perhaps balances them differently. As it applies here, some folk's lean more to one side of the spectrum or the other. When I used the word 'intuitor' for instance, I meant it as someone who is more willing, or able, to utilize that type of knowledge/skill gathering.... not that they were 'solely' an intuitive thinker.

"Re intuition: It mostly builds on information that has been gathered and processed previously..."

Yes, perhaps, but not necessarily consciously. Gathering, processing, and change can be effected subconsciously. The 'building' is why training of the instinctive shooting method is best learned as a process, done more effectively some ways than others. Foundations are best built from the ground up... an accumulation of learned skills and results of problem solving built upon one another. And much of it can be done subconsciously, if we allow it, if we CAN allow it.... whether assessing target distance, direction, speed, or redirecting the arrow by adjusting the sight picture on successive shots.

Highlander, I don't know if it was universal or not, but have seen it in my archery literature as late as the 1930-40's.

"Both agree intuition exists, both agree the information is stored in the grey matter up top, so lets not get held up with how it got there"

But that IS the debate brought forth nowdays, right? 'How it got there'. How the information is aquired. The debate previously revolved around how it was 'applied'. But since it's been generally accepted now that aiming can be 'done' subconsciously, some have jumped rails and declared that the information and skills cannot be 'aquired' subconsciously.

As far as your last question.... I shot a compound with sights for several years, but there was no concsious reference to arrow alignment since I first picked up the longbow. I trained with the instinctive method exclusively, shooting farther as I improved until I was shooting out near my point on range. When the arrow point encroached on my view of the target such that I couldn't help but be conscious of it, I began using it at those distances and farther.

Jeff Durnell

11-20-2007, 04:05 PM

Like Martin aluded to, gap shooting necessitates that we limit the role of the intuitive mind(and the subconscious) in our aiming...... which would apply to any method utilizing a conscious aiming reference.

The converse of that is true as well. Instinctive shooting necessitates that we don't limit them, and that we trust them.

So Highlander, maybe that helps answer your question.... "How do we all tap into the Intuitive learning curve and overcome cognitive thought?".

Martin Farrent

11-21-2007, 12:39 AM

But that IS the debate brought forth nowdays, right? 'How it got there'. How the information is aquired. The debate previously revolved around how it was 'applied'. But since it's been generally accepted now that aiming can be 'done' subconsciously, some have jumped rails and declared that the information and skills cannot be 'aquired' subconsciously.

As far as I'm concerned, the learning process has always been the debate, Jeff.

If you learned to assess distance with the help of a rangefinder and to set your gaps according to a list in your pocket, then gradually discovered you no longer needed the rangefinder or the list or even two separate steps (distance estimation and gap determination), that would simply be automation of an often repeated exercise - in my book, of course.

"Subconscious" remains a big word that covers a lot more than unreflected skills. "Automation" is a more commonplace concept. If it's only the latter, it's hardly worth discussing (or do we bother to define 'instinctive cycling'?). If learning itself can be 'subconscious', we have a path worth exploring... since we might indeed bypass the need for 'conscious' aiming exercises. But "conscious" is another of those big and highly popularised words - not at all synonymous with structured thought, which is the way many treat it in these threads.

For example, things begin to get fuzzy when we consider range assessment on its own. Now obviously, we don't require any particular unit to accomplish this task. Nor do we even need a single unit at all. "The distance from my gate to the apple tree," and "the width of the car park at the kindergarten" don't beg a common denominator (paces, yards, meters etc.) to be recognised and transposed more or less well. Nor need the mind utilise words and sums to achieve the transposition - but wordless thought (i.e. in pictures) is not the same as subconscious thought. Going one step further: even a very rough notion of what's ultra-short, short, medium, fairly long, long and too far will ultimately translate into comparison with something already experienced often... the mind gradually divorcing itself from specific pictures of practice scenarios, but still anchored to them historically. All words to the effect: pictorial thought is conscious thought, and if it's at the root of an automated process, that process was learnt consciously.

Now, while I'm unable to accept the notion of subconscious learning without conscious guidance, I'm perfectly able to accept the idea of largely pictorial thought governing the learning process... sight-picture determined learning. And if some form of that is considered "instinctive" by some, that's fine by me too. I don't even mind using the word myself to describe their approach.

But a clearer understanding of the learning process itself - not subconscious, just not governed by words and thought structures - goes a long was to demystifying (sorry) the concept of "instinctive" shooting. If you accept it, the difference is not between conscious and subconscious learning, but between various types of conscious learning, and the result is often automation - regardless of how it's reached.

Then it's up to any newcomer to decide which brand of conscious learning suits his demands and character best.

I think the distinction between structured/worded and visual thought makes more sense than differentiating between analytical and intuitive thought. Ultimately, I also think it more helpful to those trying to reach reasoned decisions. (Yes, I know we're ignoring significant concepts like 'muscle memory' here... just add them to the equation, if you want. I'm trying - believe it or not - to keep things as simple as possible.)

... gap shooting necessitates that we limit the role of the intuitive mind (and the subconscious) in our aiming...... which would apply to any method utilizing a conscious aiming reference.
The converse of that is true as well. Instinctive shooting necessitates that we don't limit them, and that we trust them.

The 'systematic' shooter uses intuition (or perhaps picture recognition), too. It can serve a corrective purpose, but can also be the final bell that triggers a shot. The ostensible, though simplified difference is that structured thought - or automated actions historically resulting from it - determines the starting point for intuition to take over. That can be relatively early in the aiming sequence for some experienced gappers (not all) and will be rather late for stringwalkers.

The 'instinctive' shooter lets the role of intuition (again, picture recognition?) begin earlier. But importantly, intuition does not rule from the onset in instinctive shooting, either. The framework of facing in the right direction, getting the angle of the torso right, 'picking a spot' etc. may seem blatantly obvious, but it does limit the scope for 'sub-conscious' aiming. That process starts at a defined moment and not beforehand.

So, it's all a matter of degree and preference. "Trust" is a good word, though. To my mind, understanding what you're asking any tool to do is a key to trusting it.

Best,

Martin

P.S. @Highlander: These are precisely the issues I've always wanted to discuss in the past. If we can get over conceptual differences by... yes!... demystifying notions like 'subconscious' and 'intuition', we might finally talk about this topic in a way relevant to all archers and not just those wondering what to learn.

Highlander

11-21-2007, 06:36 AM

Jeff, yes undoubtedly we are all wired differently an I would not classify myself to much one way or the other, I just like to be precise to a point I can follow, I am open to inner feelings, and sensory and use both, there is always the exception to most rules, the oddments that don’t follow standard principals, maybe I fall in that group!

“Folks who gravitate more naturally to instinctive shooting, by no surprise, don't over-analyze, itemize, or belabor it as such for the same reason.”

The Fuzzy feeling could be portrayed as an intuitive forthcoming but I doubt it! as the feeling is more of precognition, something that the brain has not received yet, I wish I could get that feeling over this weeks lottery numbers, but there probably is limits with good reason!

“solely' an intuitive thinker.”

I am not sure any of us could be what you would describe as Intuitive THINKERS, because it is my belief these are more feelings, although the formation of which has a bias for originating in the brain; now I would have to agree with both sides here that Intuition at least in part is based on what an individual has experienced (Consciously) efficiently by the use of pictures is probable (any teaching of memory expansion usually have some teachings that would substantiate this), I still believe though the brain is capable of so much more:

1. When on the shooting range you are consciously aware of (X) but your senses are picking up smells, your eyes are pick up wind displacement of grass trees your ears (maybe they can pick up audible sounds that the conscious part cannot?), all this is being fed to the brain, now whether this is stored along with the picture I would not like to say, is it stored consciously?

2. Have you ever been driving along an got to your destination and completely missed out a couple of miles in your minds eye, well it happened, it went into your brain although you may not have consciously been aware of it!

3. All these as with some previous examples would suggest the brain is doing something, something we are not consciously aware of!

Therefore I do believe we have abilities that current words cannot explain, and to explain them would require the understanding of the human Brain and all its inter-actments; if our lifetimes should only be as long!

“The 'building' is why training of the instinctive shooting method is best learned as a process”

Jeff I think we can agree the Instinctive* way would be better learnt as a process, would you care to share the gospel writings with us – or an indication how we can consciously or otherwise limit or enhance the usage of what is required to following the path, or is it just as easy as pointing your finger, shoot some arrows and then shoot some more, and don’t consciously do any calculations or adjustments, this just may be the trust you spoke of? Do we consciously see the target in your aiming method (just seeking clarification here) is this not a reference?

Generally references may be:
1. Back of arrow
2. Arrow tip
3. The spot
All are in alignment (basics) a hit!

“When the arrow point encroached on my view of the target such that I couldn't help but be conscious of it”

This is the point I was trying to clarify earlier! Can you see the arrow (blind response etc…) so you can see it but you don’t use it for aiming and are not conscious of it? until the above……..?

Back to the debate and what i see it as, it is more:

How can you learn (get it in there) to apply (use it) it!

The brain is a wonderful thing and I would say we constrain its usage by just being who we are, if we keep an open mind we may well be on the path to understanding what is behind some of hidden doors.

My beliefs are:

Intuitive, is more of an outward going process we probably gain very little new data this way although what is already stored may be adjusted by new inputs from other sources

Subconscious, is well if I had a definitive answer to this one I don’t think the forum would be going on for much longer, but it appears it can process and store… and give back, access is the key here!

Senses, well they speak for themselves generally receiving

Conscious, well this muddles up everything it can lays its hands on, continuously questioning doubting and adjusting and trying resolve, which in turn is in effect just chasing ones tail, control may and may not be the key depending on your perspective outlook.

I don’t think there is anything structured in conscious thought as structuring may imply procedural patterns, the brain in its entirety is in control (?) not the conscious, what ever is happening behind the scenes will undoubtedly impact in essence, conscious actions!

Martin
“But wordless thought (i.e. in pictures) is not the same as subconscious thought.”

One must be sure of what subconscious thought is first to make such a statement, and is there a possibility of interchangeability between them. A person can decide and believe whatever they want, reading into (as you previously stated) what ever they see as fitting to their belief, it would seem that you may be hampered by a blinkered approach?

If you do not 100% know how the brain and all brains work it would be better to keep an open mind! I think negating the trivial semantics of the wording - how the brain employs shooting data and gives it back to us is the key - not which words we utilize in attempting to relay our understanding, yes it is important to ask for clarification at time, as we all cant put into words exactly what we are trying to convey.

Martin the forum is definitely on track to make some very good reading, and understanding of what its all about!

The existence of death is seldom apparent to the healthy living, but it exists all the same!

Martin Farrent

11-21-2007, 06:51 AM

Highlander,

I've always found that to negate semantics is to negate discussion - or to bypass someone else's arguments. ;)

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-21-2007, 07:23 AM

Martin

I agree to a point, as long s it does not hinder discussion, there has to be common ground to progress hence the clarification pointer!

There is a time and a place to fine-tune the semantics! It is more important at this stage to discus a topic without going into too much detail, treading lightly on proving or disproving and great care should be taken in the usage of words that even their creators didn’t fully understand and thereby have ever changing meanings?

H.

The unknown is only unknown to the unknowing

Martin Farrent

11-21-2007, 07:44 AM

There is a time and a place to fine-tune the semantics! It is more important at this stage to discus a topic without going into too much detail, treading lightly on proving or disproving and great care should be taken in the usage of words that even their creators didn’t fully understand and thereby have ever changing meanings?

Highlander,

The idea of words is for everyone to mean the same thing when using one. Since that is utopian, we strive to clarify them and agree on working definitions within debates like this one. Accepting that definitions may change or differ is one thing. Using it as an excuse for fast-forward thought is another.

If you want to bypass the points I made, just say so. Personally, I find it strange that people always pull the no-semantics joker when the semantics are close to the heart of things.

I also find it rather off-putting that you've appointed yourself as the person deciding in which direction this thread needs to move. More and more, I'm uncertain whether you want a discussion of the basics or a basic primer on instinctive shooting. If it's the latter you desire, that ain't the original theme of the thread (as defined by you yourself).

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-21-2007, 08:41 AM

Martin
It would be a nice thought if only that were true (all words did have a universally SINGULAR meaning) but unfortunately it would also be good if understanding everything was also universal but that is not the case on so many accounts and languages and times our discussion is not to debate the words used, but to seek clarification in the meaning of the writer! I thought I had made that plain to see? I make no excuses for my wordings or actions; I have been as honest as I can throughout, I merely state what I see and feel and keep an open mind!

To have a forum stuck on wording “ you don’t believe Subconscious learning is possible” then giving diverse explanations like

"Subconscious" remains a big word that covers a lot more than unreflected skills.”

Well if you have the knowledge I will listen!

I don’t think you have, nor does anyone have that complete ability, so this contradicts your utopian definitions! The word/phrase means more than it would imply and is very ambiguous, the solution would have to be universal which this forum is not!

If there is any bypassing it is not I that is doing it! I decided at the start of the week not to take this thread apart as I had started to do earlier on! It was going nowhere then. I have given examples of what I posed could potentially be subconscious brain activity I even directed it at you, who did not respond?

I also find it a poor excuse to try and take the heat of yourself in mid discussion by talking about playing jokers, I really don’t understand that other than you were the one who persistently said people read what they want, and I pointed out you were continual about this and you could not give (utopian) substantiation to your claims of disproof.

If you would like to direct what you wish comments on, feel free, but do the same in return!

I would not think of myself as the one deciding which way this thread goes, as I said before I am sitting on the fence as a bystander in between both sides agreeing with both to a point and giving opinions. If this is off-putting I can stop contributing just say so don’t hide behind more obtuse words?

I know what I defined do you I continually used the (*) as an umbrella to show it was an archers understanding I wanted, an archers discussion, what you now read into this is continual proof of a blinkered approach!

I think the other side has been most open and I have taken a lot from the writings, don’t take things personal they are not meant to be, it is a discussion to find out the truth and that’s it!

An independent brain not hindered by tunnel vision is not always seen as a gift

Papabull

11-21-2007, 12:37 PM

I, personally, believe we all aim in one way or another. Which is the best aiming method really comes down to how well any given archer can use his aiming method. Some feel strongly that the subconscious can excel when conscious aiming methods cannot. I and a number of others feel that conscious aiming excels, instead. But it's purely opinion and, frankly, pretty irrelevant. People who want to aim without thinking about it can do so and practice to their heart's content and if they think that they could do better with conscious aiming, they have that option open to them, as well. On the other hand, people who use conscious aiming methods know how automatic they become and if they're not easy and automatic enough, they can always eschew their conscious aiming methods in favor of instinctive shooting.

Is instinctive really instinctive? Well, yes, kinda, maybe, definitely, absolutely not, positively so, quite impossible, I don't know. It's multiple choice and any one of those answers is a good position from which to start a debate.

When it's all boiled down to it's pure essence, we're all trying to hit something if we're doing anything but clout shooting or flight shooting. Targets of one sort or another are the object of our attention and it's our goal to strike them as accurately as possible with whatever method and equipment we choose. Arguing that missing is better or more fun or more the object of our sport is silly. So, we are as good as our shooting says we are and our aiming methods are as good as we can make them work for us, whatever they are. If it doesn't work well enough for you, either work at it harder or try something different.

:2cents:

Martin Farrent

11-21-2007, 03:29 PM

Highlander,

I think a simple Wikipedia link demonstrates just how useful the word "subconscious" really is(n't):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious

Take it from there and explore the links given in the article.

For me, the key message is that "subconscious" is not a word scientists really like to use a hell of a lot. The term is often employed as a black box to work around lack of more convincing and detailed description - something I've said before. That's perfectly okay if you have practical reasons for not delving too deep, as given by LBG earlier on. If analysis stands to break a desired mental mode that works for your shooting, shun it. But for a thread attempting to explore the theoretical existence/mechanisms of instinctive shooting, it's not only legitimate but almost imperative to open the box and look what's inside.

Pinpointing what "subconscious" may just mean in archery seems a more promising pursuit than hanging on to a fuzzy (to use that adjective again) word. That's what I tried to do in my lengthy post a while back. Of course, other explanations are feasible and possibly much better than mine. But I no longer really have the impression that you're anxious to 'unfuzz' (explain) the issue - you currently seem more keen to avoid inspection by disallowing semantic debate.

Other than that, I'm back where I started in this thread. PB's post contains just about everything of practical consequence... unless instinctive and systematic aimers find a way of discussing their common ground, as opposed to their differences (which is what I attempted to do).

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 01:30 AM

Martin

I am not sure I follow now you have completely lost me, you state you want to explore and meet on utopian definitions of all words (semantics) used in the discussion as I was in your eyes apparently musing or passing over these words! You stated it tantamount to a good discussion to delve to the root of the cause! Now you give an example of one definition of the word subconscious and highlight the very fact I did earlier it is very ambiguous and the beholding factor always seems to you to revolve around what Scientists think!

This brings me to the questions:

1. Do we continue to try and define subconscious it is a part of this discussion and meets your previous statement (the Wikepedia cant define it accurately, nor will any source, I think I already stated that)

2. Do we play our joker and say Jeff believes his subconscious mind is doing something he is not consciously aware of, now because the word itself can’t be accurately agreeably defined (the gospel writings of the scientists and the Wikepedia as well) we have tried to say the brain is capable of more than conscious activity (you do dream don’t you? – do you remember all the details of your dream?)

I have said lets not get hung up over the usage of such words; you disagreed at first and now appear to say something different? Clarity behind what the writer’s usage is the main importance!

All said before by me! I don’t wish to spend the time capturing it in quotes either!

If you look at your link in more detail you will notice at least four links to things that have been mentioned before in this forum, you have decided not to comment on them, that’s fine!

Now, as you seem to say?

The brain is only capable of conscious thought and you could go on trying to convince us for eternity, and pose it has all been related to something we have learned before in addition to new consciously gained data, it is stored in pictures etc, there are some pointers from your writings that defiantly do have an impact on others, but the core of the argument, that the brain is incapable of anything else will Never be conveyed to %100 satisfaction to the other side. The same can be said for the opposing argument, can you prove it is only conscious activity the brain can process I think not!

So where does this lead:- as PB and others have said a lot of people out there just wonder what all the fuss is about, you use what you can and make it better or at least as good as you can! For a few though, they just want to know if there’s anything else out there, something they may be missing, some want to know how it works, why it works, does it work, some can they tap into it, hence this forum.

So again don’t get hung up on certain words, ask for clarification, pose your argument against and proceed,

A very brief recap!

Jeff believes he and his mind are capable of something in aiming his conscious is not aware of; he uses words to relay this! (I believe at least that his mind capable, you don’t believe it is in the archery, learning/use context)
Martin believes in the archery context everything is learned and by a conscious process?
(Jeff thinks he can disprove this by just using his technique, I think the brain has more to offer)

With all that straight? I will read into any words henceforth to do with brain activity as just that the brain is doing something, yes just musing over the wording unless clarity is required!

Words like Instinctive, Intuitive, subconscious are ambiguous hence the (*) you can go on for ever reading what meaning you wish into these but I would like to advance and think the brain is doing something, how do you get it to do that, can you train it, are there things that affect it, I don’t want to understand the brain at least not in its entirety as I would have to say that it is probably beyond me, just how and what do archers like Jeff do what they do, can it be relayed, and if in that explanation we can find out a bit more on brain activity, Brilliant

I am severely going over old ground, and probably boring every reader that has got a quarter of the way through this entry – sorry for that!

But I hope you see my view now, it is not to miss anything out, please give pointers if you feel that is happening, it is not to direct the forum!

I would like to be proved right in my beliefs, but equally would like to be proved wrong and learn something new!

H

P.S. Martin you are not akin to scientific communities or scientific work are you?

Martin Farrent

11-22-2007, 02:12 AM

Now, as you seem to say?

The brain is only capable of conscious thought and you could go on trying to convince us for eternity...

I didn't say that, Highlander.

I said that conscious thought is not restricted to structured, numbered or worded thought... and that thinking and remembering in pictures also constitutes a form of conscious thought.

I then ventured to guess that pictorial (conscious) thinking/learning is behind much of instinctive archery... and not subconscious learning, whatever that may be.

You may also recall: I initially warned that instinctive shooters would be generally hesitant to open what I call the black box - preferring to give it a name like "subconscious" and leave well alone. I can understand that, because mental modes can be subtle and sensitive, and these people seek to strengthen and maintain a certain one for practical reasons.

So that really leaves you with guys like me who have fewer qualms about opening that box, but who don't shoot instinctively. Am I entitled to guess what's going on beneath the lid or not? Of course I am, and you are entitled not to listen... since my scant experience of instinctive shooting doesn't qualify me to explain it. So you essentially have: those who don't do it, but might discuss it. And those who do it, but won't discuss it (in detail).

And with each of these threads, the number of those prepared to discuss it dwindles even further. This particular debate has not been as antagonistic as some, but - with all due apologies, since your enthusiasm is earnest - almost as useless. We have been spared the pseudo-religion, which is a blessing. But pragmatism (how to do it) and reality (what it is) have gotten hopelessly confused as always.

Highlander, surely you must begin to realise by now that it's up to you. If you can define instinctive shooting in a way that helps you successfully implement what you think it is, more power to you. It rather obviously requires a certain mental mode that must be found (or not) individually. Jeff has found it for himself, as has LBG. And that's the limit of what can be done with the term from a practical point of view.

Meaning to say: an individual, pragmatic definition of instinctive shooting can be 'lived', but has no claim to objectivity. If it feels 'subconscious' to you, so be it. Use it, if you're happy with the scores it produces. But don't expect others to accept the labels you've stuck on it. They are only there for the highly un-philosophical purpose of establishing your own modus operandi.

Conversely, if you want to discuss the reality behind the pragmatism (and sometimes at odds with it), then the debate is no longer about 'making it work'. The labels are then stripped of their purpose and subject to critique.

You may even discover this puzzle:

Reality: It doesn't work.
Pragmatism: It works if you ignore reality.

(Solution: "It" is not what it's made out to be. But what it's made out to be is a useful way of viewing it... for some.)

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 03:43 AM

Martin

“I said that conscious thought is not restricted to structured, numbered or worded thought... and that thinking and remembering in pictures also constitutes a form of conscious thought.”

Lets not beat about the bush and cut to the chase!

The mind is capable of more than conscious thought:
1. Yes
2. No
What is your view?

We agree I think from your latter writing that the use of the word subconscious should be avoided, as it side tracks the forum and that any future discussions venturing into the black, grey or white box and even approximating its contents are all a worth while pursuit, please open away, but stand and be judged also!

I think Jeff has opened up to relaying his technique very well and an understanding is on the way, or at least for me! I will not get hung up on his terminology of others that wish to contribute, I will merely ask for their guidance if I am uncertain on the content of their expressives.

I would not use the term, Explain Instinctive shooting, lightly and would prefer to take it as a basis for Understanding Instinctive shooting for obvious reasons. I would hope this thread is subtle enough to attract all who have input and that it would not dissuade any readers from such an input, as you say making people comfortable about talking about there archery experiences is the way to gain a useful knowledge and understanding which is what we are all about at TT.

I don’t think we will ever get ideas or philosophies of how it’s done on paper, as they are portrayed yet do we see they have been lived (if we can accept it), thus all we can do at distance is read from writings what we can, the relayed expressions of those that have them, this is the reality for most of us, even a first hand observer on displayed situations would not be able to pick up much more, probably less, so we have to believe the output from the source, if we get an honest common point from similar sources and cant disprove it (not the real intention of this forum) then we can take it something of interest has occurred!

I think I can explain Instinctive shooting to a degree to myself, but what if I am wrong!

We could all go round believing the world was flat, but we are only fooling ourselves, the quest for the truth is more overpowering than that for me at least! I would say the same for any body wishing a fruitful debate on the subject, or maybe Jeff was right and am sub-classified somewhere, well maybe Jeff, LBG have got what they want but what if you told them you had the secret to shooting success, the secret of Instinctive (*) shooting that would give them that prefect score every time the called on it, would you think they would have a rejuvenated interested (again this is not the point of the discussion, or at least not mine) what label do you see I have given it?

“Meaning to say: an individual, pragmatic definition of instinctive shooting can be 'lived', but has no claim to objectivity”

Your use of terms here leads to a few avenues?

“But don't expect others to accept the labels you've stuck on it. They are only there for the highly un-philosophical purpose of establishing your own modus operandi.”

Your takings on the above point could not be further from the truth, and I have obviously not been clear enough for you throughout!

My MO is portrayed below and I could not put it simpler!

Philosophy: love of wisdom (Plato)

p.s.

Reality: is it doesn’t work till proven it does, thus reality: it works until disproven, depends on your view, the safe option, reality: is it May work and I cant prove it either way for now!
Pragmatism: a hardheaded practical observational approach tending away from theoretical encroachments of reality matters.

No contradiction, you can only fool yourself into the belief you are ignoring the realism of fact!

Jeff Durnell

11-22-2007, 04:53 AM

Sorry guys, I didn't read the last few posts, it's just not worth it to me. I don't get on the computer very often anymore and when I do, I don't have the time or desire to keep up with the long and frequent posts like we have here. I pretty much just check my emails and I'm gone again. So all the best in your debates, musings, whatever. Play nice.

Hi Robert!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!!

Martin Farrent

11-22-2007, 05:08 AM

The mind is capable of more than conscious thought:
1. Yes
2. No
What is your view?

Yes, but simply labelling it all as "subconscious" is not helpful in a theoretical debate. And labelling what is actually conscious thought as "subconscious" is wrong.

I would hope this thread is subtle enough to attract all who have input and that it would not dissuade any readers from such an input, as you say making people comfortable about talking about there archery experiences is the way to gain a useful knowledge and understanding which is what we are all about at TT.

LBG explained a very valid reason for a person with extensive experience of what he regards as instinctive shooting not to have much input for a thread like this one.

... so we have to believe the output from the source...

You still don't seem to grasp the difference between realism and pragmatism.

Yes, I believe what Jeff (for example) says about his own way of experiencing what he does and has done. Yes, I believe that his way of experiencing it is probably what makes it work for him. But no, I don't think his description of the experience comes very close to the scientific (real) truth of it. I don't think the thought processes involved are rightly termed "subconscious". I don't think the latter term is useful at all, when it comes to taking the mechanisms apart. Its use is restricted to pragmatism (i.e. it's a good working definition for him).

I think I can explain Instinctive shooting to a degree to myself, but what if I am wrong!

If you understood the individuality and subjectivity of the topic, you would realise that you can't be wrong - if you're looking for a way to shoot. And that you can be totally wrong, if you're looking for the scientific explanation... yet still shoot well.

We could all go round believing the world was flat, but we are only fooling ourselves, the quest for the truth is more overpowering than that for me at least!

Once again, you fail to grasp the subjective vs. objective, pragmatic vs. realist facets of the debate. Sometimes (most of the time, in fact) it's useful to treat the world as if it were flat.

If you're looking for the reality beyond that, you'll discover more about physics and the universe, but it won't do much for your skiing.

... what label do you see I have given it?

I was talking in general. The labels one uses as crutches during implementation of an idea are not necessarily the labels one might use to explain its actual workings.

Highlander, in a nutshell, you've created a confused thread:

Do you want to know what actually happens in the brain of an instinctive shooter from an objective point of view (based on what we know or may speculate)? Or do you want to know how to shoot instinctively yourself?

Don't allow your mind to focus on aiming at all.

The above advice is a) not something I favour myself, and b) objectively impossible. But it's arguably a phrase you can relate to during practice and one that can conjure a certain mental mode. It's a mirage you can possibly make real, so to speak. So if you care to shoot that way, try it.

If it works, good. If not, try something else. Neither result will prove or disprove a thing - except for your own purposes.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 05:09 AM

Jeff

Sorry to see you go, the content thus far was great, have a good Xmas and New-year!

Martin you could be right about one thing, the beginning of the end is nigh!

H

All things that begin and begin to end, end at the beginning of the end of another time!

Martin Farrent

11-22-2007, 05:30 AM

Martin you could be right about one thing, the beginning of the end is nigh!

The end was here all the time, Highlander.

Very few people see any value in an abstract debate on instinctive aiming... which is what I've been trying to tell you from the onset. Even you can't make up your mind whether the discussion is about doing or understanding.

It boils down to this: We're all trying to solve the problems of distance assessment and trajectory as reliably and accurately and efficiently as possible. We all wish it were easier. We're not really trying to understand the mind at all, except for auxiliary purposes. We just want to shoot high scores or lots of deer in a fun way.

There are two basic recipes for this: Learn explicit systems to guage distance and set the point of the arrow. Or trust your brain to eventually master the challenge in a less ordered way. Most of us try both recipes, and when we talk about them, it's from the point of view of experienced efficiency. Beyond that, hardly anyone cares much or for long.

Unlike others, I do find the topic interesting from a theoretical point of view. But I like to keep the theoretical and pragmatic side of things apart. That's why I get a little irritated in these debates and that's why I'm the next guy to bow out of them in future.

A question like this one...

...we have tried to say the brain is capable of more than conscious activity (you do dream don’t you? – do you remember all the details of your dream?)

... shows just how far these archery-specific debates are removed from an impartial look at mind reality. Because it illustrates nothing but further complexity, which is the opposite of what you probably wanted to hear. Yes, I dream. No, I don't remember all the details. Yes, I remember the details of dreams just before waking up. Does that make some dreams conscious? Can a car driving past and waking me up constitute the difference between a 'conscious' and 'subconscious' dream?

The question is actually valid. But I doubt many of us care. If you are one of those that do, you've gotta be prepared to separate the entire debate from archery until some kind of common theoretical foundation has been established.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 06:13 AM

Even you can't make up your mind whether the discussion is about doing or understanding.

The discussion is about Knowledge, use whatever other words to relay what portion you will!

It is or was to attempt to clarify an archers usage of the terms, understandings and uses thereof within the Instinctive* umbrella!

Can one do without first understanding, is understanding a conscious concept? If you can do without understanding and it is conscious or not could this belie the style we are searching for?

In my localized responses to individual entries I would have responded accordingly (or what I thought was accordingly) I would not have reiterated time and time again the same thing, I would not Have thought it was needed for someone following the debate!

You have still managed to evade questions directed at you!!

You cant have a continuing discussion on that basis……..

Will you ever give direct answers on your beliefs? It’s easy:

Yes! you were correct/incorrect until proven otherwise
No! you were correct/incorrect until proven otherwise

Don’t shy away from other people’s opinions or proofs they are in the same boat as you!

All the best

H

Highlander

11-22-2007, 06:28 AM

now now martin changing your entry after a reply is not allowed! remember Jeff’s words play fair!

Lets not beat about the bush and cut to the chase!

The mind is capable of more than conscious thought:
1. Yes
2. No
What is your view?

well?

H

Martin Farrent

11-22-2007, 06:42 AM

I was changing it as you wrote, not trying to 'cheat', Highlander.

And I already answered your question two or three posts up. Sorry, but the answer is possibly more complex than you wanted. Thing is that you're being ambiguous about such complexities... you acknowledge them, but only to propose bypassing them.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 07:47 AM

I saw your replies, and as you say the answer is complex; in being evasive so as not really to incriminate yourself, not leaving yourself wide open for return fire! Well I can understand some people are just like that and I don’t have an issue with it, you should become a scientist or a politician, I think you would do quite well in those circles!

Things would only be bypassed if agreement was reached by all participants or if the fine detail were of trivial importance and as such would not affect the outcome after sufficient clarification!

Martin, try this:

Do you have a complete understanding of the human brain in its entirety:

Yes?
No?

H

Martin Farrent

11-22-2007, 08:01 AM

No, I haven't.

So it's a free for nobody or a free for all, I suppose.

We accept anything anyone wants to say as conceivably true and conceivably untrue and essentially unfathomable anyway... so the first guy who offers a definition of anything gets to say what it's all about, unless... unless what? Unless we toss a coin, I suppose.

Best,

Martin

Highlander

11-22-2007, 08:18 AM

Bravo!

I will leave it at that on that point! as you know where it could lead and have said as much in your own way!

you do have an open mind after all.......

I look forward to our next encounter or continuation on our debate!

regards

H.

Phil

12-01-2007, 02:35 PM

It's all to do with the way the Pyramidal System of the motor cortex initiates and controls simple repeatable locomotor tasks. Once the task has then been repeated the neuro locomotor cycle is the transfered to the Extra Pyramidal system via the pyramidal tract.
The PS initiates the locomotor task (i.e. I'm going to shoot this arrow) The EPS takes over the neural mechanisms by which the arrow is shot.
If you'd like me to explain it in more detail I will

Highlander

12-03-2007, 03:33 AM

Why would you need to explain it?

Are you trying to capture the whole process? Or just brain does something, transmits a signal, and muscles move?

If you feel the need to elaborate? Great! The brain end would be of real interest, what is perceived in all ways (senses, intuition etc.) what the brain does (consciously & subconsciously to use common terms) in differing individuals (examples)

H

blackwidowbowman

01-03-2008, 09:30 AM

I hate this question, but I cannot resist responding to it. So I will put myself out here to be shot at again. The art of "Instinctive shooting" is just pointing the hand holding the weapon. Now of course it is more to than that, add the push, the pull, the back tension, the solid anchor, and the rock steady bowhand...you know.

I am a Police Officer/Investigator for a large Texas Department. I spent a number of years in Narcotics doing undercover work. Part of our training was point shooting(instinctive)six times a year in additional to our regular qualifying.

We did not just practice in low light, we did so at no light situations too. We were not able to use sights because we could not see the darn things. We had young guys, old guys, and females.

Everyone developed the ability to shoot frightenly well under those conditions. Most times the weapon never reached eye level, shooting from the hip in most cases at distances from two yards to fifteen yards.

This practice came to mind the last time I responded to this type of post. I was kicking myself because I failed to explain my method of shooting as well as I could have. I consider myself an instinctive archer, I don't use any reference point, I don't use the tip of the arrow, the shelf, or anything like that.

Let me take this time to say that I don't consider myself special because I shoot this way. I know many of my friends who use gap, point of aim, and other methods. Many of them can shoot the eyes out of a gnat at twenty paces. I chose this method because it works for me.

I digress, I look at what I want to hit and focus my attention on the spot I want the arrow to hit. I then, for lack of a better description, point my bow hand at the spot. I hit anchor, settle in, and release. If I do my job the arrow is in the spot, or darn close.

It is that simple, however, it took a lot of practice. The most difficult part was trusting myself, because shooting without reference is not natural for most people.

Highlander

01-17-2008, 05:59 AM

All

This is first report back in 2008 – so a good new year to you all!

I’ll keep this short as I have a mind to a longer update since watching MBB1 & MBB2, but enough on that for now.

Blackwidowbowman:-

How did you start of shooting, i.e. how did you learn, then adapt (if you did) to your Instinctive* style, was there reference/s in the beginning?

The first arrow shot straight will be the first straight arrow shot with a straight arrow!

H

warbow

01-17-2008, 10:28 AM

I've never seen an instinctive shooter claim that true 'instinct', in its strictest sense, is how the arrow is aimed, and yet, that's what most critics belabor, or eventually return to as a base in their 'debates', the terminology….over, and over.

You may never have seen it but it has certainly been done over and over again. I've been in few threads where people have made that claim to me, saying that, yes, they are born with a in instinct for archery and that their skill in archery is not a conditioned behavior involving subconscious aiming. It is not a straw argument to counter the idea that "instinctive" archery is not "instinctive" in the behavioral definition. Perhaps you just haven't seen people claim that archery is really instinctive in this forum, where the discussions tend to be a little less Paleolithic.

Like "traditional," "instinctive" is a term with multiple uses, including specific scientific uses and broader common uses. People often mistake the common use with the behavioral definition without realizing they are conflating the two.

BowDonkey

01-18-2008, 05:24 AM

I'll be brief.

Desert Archer

01-18-2008, 06:51 AM

BD, I couldn't agree more!

Dave

57hop

01-18-2008, 04:22 PM

Blackwidowbowman provides an interesting counter to my usual response when I am asked about my aiming:
I reply that I am using arm and the arrow as a pointer toward the target and yes, sometimes, often with a new setup,or after a long layoff ,I'll purposely "check" the references in my sight picture.

Then I'll usually go out on limb a bit by adding that everyone is seeing the arrow/bow/arm/target sight picture, wether or not they admit to being aware of it, or purport to shoot only by looking at the target. I posit that nobody would shoot as well if a barrier was placed in the way of their view of the bow.

BWBowman effectively blocks that picture with darkness.

I'd argue that through repetitive training, spatial awareness will allow you to compensate for missing parts of the picture to some degree, kind of a "muscle memory" effect. But you won't shoot as consistantly.

SteveGabriel

01-19-2008, 04:59 PM

I instinctively refrain from posting an opinion on this subject.

:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

Sam Dunham

01-25-2008, 02:41 PM

Websters pretty much decides exceptable definitions. If you have instincts about something= installed in your brain at birth, by the gene pool you inherited. Say to cry, or suck for milk etc. Then if you shoot this way, you must have an incredible ancestry with archery skills that they were born with. Archery genes? Oh well if you say you shoot with a certain method that works for you, then call it what you want, just get the right word and definition for your method before trying to sell the title. Mountain style like Steve shoots sounds good to me. Beutiful way of shooting, and Steve makes it look so easy., I still have not broken my habit for milk consumption, thanks Mom.

SaltyDawg

06-02-2008, 05:51 PM

Instinctive shooting is so simple, that many people don't recognize it, because they are looking for something more complicated, and they won't agree with how it is achieved, even when the truth of it is looking them right in the face.

Get beyond believing in magical, and mystical, and you are 75 percent there, but the remaining 25 percent is the hardest part.

If you have no method to your madness, you are truly MAD. :2cents: :boxing:

SaltyDawg

06-02-2008, 06:02 PM

Here is something I posted a good while back on how I feel about the subject.

Instinctive Sooting - Method or Myth?

When stumpin or targeting - The #1 thing is to have fun

When hunting - The #1 thing is to be as proficient as you possibly can. The fun will then follow.

I consider myself to be an "instinctive" shooter. BUT I trained myself to be.

I was one of those fortunate enough to have a natural athletic ability for the bow and arrow.

When I first started shooting, I never gave a seconds thought as to what process, or method I was using to hit where I wanted, and I shot pretty good. I harvested a lot of game, and I had a lot of fun shooting.

Then one day I was introduced to the competitive aspect of archery.
On the very first day I realized I had a long way to go before I could consider myself a "Good" archer.

I shot with folks (men, women, and youths) who were shooting the exact same equipment as I, (recurves, and longbows. Off the shelf. No sights, no additions of any kind.)who were absolutely amazing shots, and though I was no slouch, I was nowhere near their ability in accuracy.

I had bought into the myth, that instinctive shooting was something mystical or magical, and that you were either blessed with it or you were not.

After a few weeks of shooting with these folks I began to watch them closely as they shot. I did not watch the arrow, I did not look at the target, I watched to shooter.

After watching them (especially the really good ones) I made a discovery which changed my shooting entirely.

The discovery was - even though they were doing it very quickly, and smoothly - there was a process they were following almost to the tee each time they shot.

Some of them, it became apparent that they were using the arrow to aim with.

Others you could tell were focusing beyond the arrow, picking a spot, and actually seeing the arrow in flight to that spot prior to their release of it. They were in fact not necessarily judging distance, but they were judging the arc of the flight to point of impact.

Either way they had been doing it so long it was an instinctive action. One in which had become so ingrained in them, they no longer had to think about it, they just "instinctively" did it.

I am not shy, so I started asking questions.
Glad I did, because (with exception to some of the younger folks who were still romancing the mythical, magical mistress) I received my answer, and it changed my mental attitude toward the bow and arrow completely.

Now, I started thinking (do I have a process of shooting I am unaware of?).(Am I just flinging, and getting lucky?)

For many hours/days/weeks/months/years afterward I have fallen back to this discovery.

I started paying more attention to what I was doing than to where the arrow was going, and began to hone the unfolding process into a "method" which has proven to be EXTREMELY fruitful for me.

The later of the two styles I had observed is my style.

My "method":

1 - Focus (pick my spot, and see the arc of the arrow to it) You can only learn this vision of the arc from shooting a lot, and it is much easier to hang onto when you shoot the same equipment all the time.

2 - Draw, looking over the arrow with peripheral vision, but not focusing on it.

3 - Anchor (always in the same spot)

4 - Settle (this one is hard to describe, but I explain it as consistency in the extension of your bow arm pertaining to the length of your draw.)

5 - Focus again (see #1)

6 - Release (I have a solid anchor. Middle finger in the corner of my mouth. Thumb behind jawbone. Split finger hold.)My release comes by relaxing my hand after starting to apply pressure by pulling my elbow around in a motion which tenses my back muscles, and pinches my shoulder blades together. This causes a pull through release, and my hand usually lands on my collar bone right against my neck.

7 - Follow through (I remain in my shooting stance, or position until the arrow has struck down range.) I try not to push my bow, but instead do my best at maintaining the position of my arm as it was at full draw.
This generally works best for me by just relaxing some.

Now - I know certain positions, and terrain (especially in a hunting scenario) will cause you to have to adapt, but when you have the fundamentals in place you upper body (from the waist up) will adjust.

I also know a lot of you are going "wow, thats a lot to think about", and yes it is, but after you have practiced it faithfully for extended periods of time, you will stop thinking about it.

You will in fact be doing it

"Instinctively"

There are two things which cannot be overlooked in order to master this art.

Those are (in order of importance):

1 - presence of mind
2 - presence of body

I for one could care less what method you choose to use. I only care about two things.

1 - Have fun when shooting
2 - Be proficient, and ethical when hunting.

What a mouth full.

The bottom line is "We are all brothers, and sisters in this thing we love", and instead of ridicule, and back biting each other we should strive to enrich the experience for all those we encounter who are interested.