instinctive shooting - not according to science

[rwd]

:2cents:

The distinguishing factor between humans and animals is that animals act out of instinct, and humans out of will. To distinguish behavior beyond the control of the organism from behavior that has a repetitive component we can turn to the book "Instinct" (1961). A number of criteria distinguish instinctual from other kinds of behavior. To be considered instinctual a behavior must a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training. The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behavior is not fully instinctual.

Overall, one of the main distinctive features of instinctive activity is the ability to react to an external stimulus the correct way the first chance and every time thereafter. I don't think instinctive archers fit that first and every time thereafter criteria at all. This trait distinguishes this particular behavior from what ethnologists call learned behavior, which scientists have discovered are actions that take place from conditioning - to learn the right way. Will, which can be defined as the power of choosing one's own actions, may be related to learned behavior; in order to choose, one must have a sense of what the outcome will be, therefore causing the choice to be learned rather than instinctive.

Perhaps all the "instinctive" shooters out there are really "learned" shooters. But then, "learned shooting" or "willed shooting" or "conditioning shooting" - doesn't sound quite as mystical, quixotic, or just downright special as "instinctive shooting" - now, does it! Now, maybe it's the animal in some folks, which makes them instinctive.
My " instincts " tell me, it just isn't so!!

Richard :)

[Desert Archer]

Richard,

Well thought out and well said. Not that you need it but I agree completely. I've always been of the "words mean things" frame of mind and "instinctive" is just the wrong word for that particular form of shooting a bow and arrow.

Having said all that, it won't change anyones mind who sees it differently. Still, a worth while post. Thanks!

Dave

[fulldraw]

Nothing about a bow and arrow is instinctive, any more than the use of any tool is instinctive. Just doesn't meet the definition.....sorry.

- Vic

[rusty craine]

ok ok ah -sightless shooter? ah no I can see

ah -barebow shooter? na defined as a class

ah -natural shooter? well I do ware clothes

well as a matter of fact we have high jacked the word instinctive as it applies to an archer and it does have a semi-defination even though we haven't decided exactly what the real defination is. I fgure we are stuck with the nomencalture so we best get on with it :)

I am sure not in disagreement with your post alas we would be better of defining "instinctive archer" than butting our heads against the wall.

words have been hijacked and mis-applied since man started using symbolic expersions. in this case it is metaphorical like saying someone is a snake or someone is a rock. instinctive archer - symbolic for archery without the aid of a sight or formal aiming process.

rusty -groove shooter- Craine

[longbowguy]

Right word or wrong word- that is merely a matter of custom and opinion. It is the word we have got. It became well established in this usage prior to WWII, the big one. Then and now, nobody has claimed to have sprung from the womb knowing how to throw a rock, jump a hurdle or shoot a bow. We do not use the word in the scientific sense; never did. I wish our narrowly literal-minded brethren could accept that.

We simply mean we aim naturally, without a conscious or numerical system, using our inborn talents, and hoping to free the subconscious mind to work the wonders of which it is capable. I also wish that those of us who enjoy doing it, and those who might wish to try, were not so pestered by those who will not accept this simple customary usage of the word.

Oh, and can it be done at a high level, at distances beyond 20 yards? Well, sure, that has been amply demonstrated since time immemorial by many great warriors, hunters, competitors and exhibition shooters of many cultures.

[fulldraw]

There it is then...."natural aimers". Works for me! :highfive:

- Vic

[Windwalker]

Narrow use of the term, and semantics!

[JackNZ]

ok ok ah -sightless shooter? ah no I can see

ah -barebow shooter? na defined as a class

ah -natural shooter? well I do ware clothes

well as a matter of fact we have high jacked the word instinctive as it applies to an archer and it does have a semi-defination even though we haven't decided exactly what the real defination is. I fgure we are stuck with the nomencalture so we best get on with it :)

I am sure not in disagreement with your post alas we would be better of defining "instinctive archer" than butting our heads against the wall.

words have been hijacked and mis-applied since man started using symbolic expersions. in this case it is metaphorical like saying someone is a snake or someone is a rock. instinctive archer - symbolic for archery without the aid of a sight or formal aiming process.

rusty -groove shooter- Craine

Yeah,,,what he said:)

BTW,I don't think there's really a need to try to discredit instinctive archers just because one doesn't agree with the use a word.
NZ's current and long standing longbow champion describes himself as an instinctive archer,arguing the true meaning of the word isn't going to help anybody beat him.
:deadhorse

[Jeff Durnell]

:deadhorse






Perhaps another hobby?

[OZ in MT]

A very educational tutorial. Thanks for posting that. The idiom "instinctive shooting" bears no reasonable relationship to instinct; it's just a poorly chosen label for one type of learned archery behavior.

[Desert Archer]

I wish our narrowly literal-minded brethren could accept that.

As one of the "narrow minded" lbg, I wish you and others would quit accusing we of the narrow minds of not accepting your inaccurate word. I have no problem with you or anyone else shooting that way until the superiority comes into it.

We simply mean we aim naturally, without a conscious or numerical system, using our inborn talents, and hoping to free the subconscious mind to work the wonders of which it is capable.

Since I can't do it, I'm obviously not as talented, free or natural. Gee, it must be wonderful to be you.

Dave

[tuffshot]

The funny thing is Instinctive is a described way of shooting and there are refferences to shooting that style, therfore a misnomer.

Such discriptions include form and body alignment, having the arrow under the eye, as well as a visualization to the intended target. Having a set plan to shoot whether aiming or not has always confused me as for a definition of instinctive. :sbrug: :confused:

[rwd]

I apologize to anyone that this thread offended. That was not my intent. I think I was more making reference to the science behind the use of the term. It seems the term instinctive gets tossed around a lot in archery, when really we are all just "archers" ... aren't we. I find it a bit odd that after that, there seems to be a need to subcategorize oneself in the sport of archery. I guess I just consider myself an archer, and I don't care what style or what choice of bow or implement one decides to use, all archers are archers first in my book. So if you were offended, my apologies. It was just the offer of an opinion. My 2 cents, as I said. Richard
:sorry:

[Pinelander]

Yes Richard.... there is the science of archery terms and also the mentality of them, which are utilized in many different ways. And I know what you mean. For some people it's important for them to sub-categorize, and others don't really give a hoot.

I would say the term "instinctive archer" is nothing more than that of describing an archer that shoots without using any SPECIFIC external references to aim. Just pointing the bow hand along with some sort of visual ques in gettng the arrow to it's mark.

Good post, Longbowhunter.... a reminder to those that have a tendency to take the word "instinctive" (as it relates to archery) a bit too literally.

"using our inborn talents, and hoping to free the subconscious mind to work the wonders of which it is capable."

Yes, DA... that description does tend to give the impression that it is a very special thing, no doubt. But in all honestly, I think it is very difficult to describe what goes on when one is "shooting instinctively", and I think Longbowhunter did an acceptable job of it, based on his personal feelings.

I believe this is where the constant rifts always flare up on this subject. Sometimes instinctive shooters will refer to their method as "natural aiming" or "self-evident aiming", while other aiming methods are "mechanical" or "calculating". This seems to lead some people to perceive that an instinctive archer is describing it as being the "superior" way. But of course, we all know that NONE of the aiming methods can be categorized as being superior, too many different aspects of archery (whether it be target or hunting) to place one over the other. Only each archer knows which one is superior for him/her, for whatever it is they are doing.

[rwd]

Pinelander, nice commentary ! I agree. (And I guess I should have placed this in this "philosophical" category from the get go, my mistake on that one.)
I sure wasn't trying to "slam" anyone by posting it. Richard

[Pinelander]

It's kind of like that thing where Juilia Roberts squirts an oyster out of it's shell and the waiter catches it and says, "Happens all the time". :)

This isn't the first discussion on "instinctive" this or that, and I'm sure it won't be the last, LOL.

Man, I've got to get outside and get my shorty DAS tuned-up with a 10-15 yd. instinctor and also slap on a 25-30 yard aperture ring for turkey hunting, LOL.

[Windwalker]

rwd:

Personally, I find nothing offensive about your thread subject. Just an off-season discussion.

When used to describe a form of aiming, I consider the term "instinctive" to mean that the person is not using a mechanical sight, and is simply and automatically reacting to learned/acquired conditioning with a particular setup.

Is it "brace-height" or "fistmele?" Some use a "bracer," I use an arm guard. :)

[Van/TX]

What Windwalker said. And I agree with Jeff :deadhorse ...Van

[Seven Arrows]

Instinctive aiming and traditional archery...

Two unfortunate misnomers...

Serve to describe bare bow shooting and long or recurve bows...

As long as this is understood, no harm...

[Jeff Durnell]

Instinctive shooting, like gap shooting, shooting with sights, p.o.a., and others, are terms used to describe how we aim. They're more 'specific', and better-suited under most circumstances for this purpose, than 'barebow'. Barebow is a general term that blankets many discernably different methods of aiming, and IMO, does more to describe equipment than it does any actual method of directing an arrow.

If someone asks, "How do you aim the arrow?", do we answer, "I aim barebow." ???

No.

Or for those who propose 'instinctive' and 'barebow' to be synonymous, do we answer, "I shoot instinctively." when we're gunbarrelling?

No, not if we wish to adequately confer our specific aiming method.

I think 'instinctive shooting' is a perfectly acceptable term to describe 'shooting without a conscious aiming reference', even though some choose not to accept it for personal reasons. IMO, personal reasons make it a personal problem.

Using such terms to define and segregate these aiming methods is nothing new. In the early 1900's the terms instinctive and intuitive were used synonymously to describe aiming an arrow without conscious references. In his book, Target Archery, Dr. Robert P. Palmer describes it as "Shooting, or a shot, by judgement and natural physical movement, without using a point-of-aim or other accessories."

I'm guessing many of the folks personally hung up on the term or meaning of the word 'instinctive' now, will sprout problems from the same personal reasons with the near century old definition as well....

.....anyone?


Is it the flies?


Here, lemme shoo them away...... :deadhorse

lol

[Martin Farrent]

In his book, Target Archery, Dr. Robert P. Palmer describes it as "Shooting, or a shot, by judgement and natural physical movement, without using a point-of-aim or other accessories."

People used to put markers on the ground as points of aim, Jeff.

This explains the use of the word "accessories" in that quote and throws some light on the inclusion of "judgement", too.

I don't think Palmer necessarily means the same as you.

Best,

Martin

(... who's not really very hung up about it, 'cos virtually no one thinks instinctive shooting accurate enough to win a big tournament in the barebow recurve class, which is something to aspire to... )

[Papabull]

nature or nurture.... proprioception or presbyopiaception.....

You know, one of the things that always piques my curiosity is the importance placed on making sure "we adequately confer our specific aiming method". I can see the importance of this if you just won a tournament and and some new-to-the-sport-archer wants to pick your brain about which aiming technique you put to such good use. I can see the point if one is trying to give instruction on the methodology involved in becoming proficient with one's aiming system.

But beyond that, why do we feel someone else should care about which aiming technique we use? Archery is about hitting your target. Whether you hit, whether you miss and how severe was the miss are the things that matter outside of the world within the cranium. How you aimed? Irrelevant to everyone else.

[Desert Archer]

I'm guilty of being one of those "...personally hung up on the term or meaning of the word 'instinctive'..." but then I also believe words mean things and I don't restrict my hangups to "instinctive". Conservative, liberal, honor and truth are all words with specific meanings. Unfortunately our society today wants words to mean only what the speaker intends at that moment. The definition of "is" is the classic example.

Getting back to archery, I'm in complete agreement with PB. The only thing that really matters is, did you hit what you were shooting at? It's when someone accuses me of cheeting because I "aimed" that the problems arise, again and again.

Dave

[Papabull]

It's when someone accuses me of cheeting because I "aimed" that the problems arise, again and again.

Dave

And sometimes it's just a disgusted look, insult or insinuation, rather than a direct accusation. A lot of people are smart enough to know that a direct accusation that you're cheating because you aimed makes them look very stupid, indeed. But some aren't smart enough to understand that. They don't realize that all shooting requires aiming if there is a target in mind. These people don't bother me as much as the knuckleheads smart enough to know better than to say it outright but just insinuate it. They know better but want to put you down any way. And they want to do it it in a way that, when they get called on their ignorant remarks, they have room to....

:crawfish:

The guys that are stupid enough to say it outright.... well, you have to consider the source. They're not playing with a full deck. The fact that a guy can make it to adulthood without knowing what the word "aim" means is ample evidence of that.

[Desert Archer]

Back when I got into this stuff (late 1950s) and wanted to be a hunter, I never heard anyone talking about tree stands. Everyone back then was a ground hunter. That is doing it the hard way to me. Spot and stalk is way harder than waiting in ambush up in a tree. With the deer populations in most of the Eastern states it doesn't seem all that hard to shoot a whitetail from a tree.

Of course, since I don't hunt anymore my opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it! (LOL)

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

I also believe words mean things...

But Dave, the trend in traditional archery and use of the English language is the glamourous miss via the instinctive brain fuzz thing.

Best,

Martin

[Desert Archer]

...the glamourous miss via the instinctive brain fuzz thing.

Although I can't imagine how, there has to be a way I can use that in a conversation. (LOL)

Dave

[Desert Archer]

My apologies to everyone on the board this morning. I got interrupted several times (four big dogs who want to play and a wife getting ready for work) and I posted my comments on the wrong thread. The one posted a 7:18am was supposed to be on the "Hard Way" thread, not the "Instinctive Shooting" one.

As they say these days, my bad. Don't know if PB or one of the Moderators wants to move it but it would sure make more sense if you do. (smiley face goes here)

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

But beyond that, why do we feel someone else should care about which aiming technique we use?

I don't care one bit - as long as you are as accurate as you want to be and/or claim no special handicap for your method.

Or rather: if you are not as accurate as others, but see your method as the reason, it's your own business and no one else's.

Now you, PB, do not advocate this, but there are many archers who believe that aiming methods other than their own should require separate classes in competition. Notably, string and facewalking are the subjects of such discrimination.

The rationale behind such blatantly unfair thought is that so-called 'instinctive' shooting is the system of choice for hunting. Therefore, and though this premise is by no means undisputed, some people think the bowhunter classes in competition should ban other systems. Now obviously, you can only ban what you are able to detect - and since gapping occurs in the mind, it's impossible to regulate it. But string and face walking are apparent to the onlooker, therefore vulnerable.

And that is why I also care what is propagated and taught to newcomers. The myth that instinctive shooting is the most practical hunting technique, albeit less accurate than other aiming systems, perpetuates a situation in which beginners attempt to learn approximate accuracy. Having got there (wherever it is), they often attempt to elevate the approximate to a standard... witness those ridiculous rules.

It ought to be plain that just-about-accurate is clearly sub-standard in a shooting sport. For it to become standard, genuine standards must suffer. This is obviously not desirable unless you don't shoot very well.

So either: instinctive shooting is as accurate as you need, whether for hunting or competition. Or it isn't. In which case it is either a) not accurate enough for either, or b) accurate enough for one, but in need of replacement for the other. If #b coincides with a shooter's findings, then he should pick up his bow and do something about it. Or do nothing about it. But not pick up a pen and author rules designed to prevent excellence surpassing his own. Or, for that matter, pollute archery forums with opinions crafted to promote mediocrity.

Now, where is the instinctive shooting guru prepared to teach me how to rival a stringwalker at 40 yards? I promise to listen respectfully when he speaks out.

Alternatively, where is the instinctive hunting guru prepared to lose gracefully when his aiming system is out of place? He or she also has my full respect.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

You're right, Martin. I don't advocate, nor do I see merit in separating classes based on barebow aiming methods. Those who install sights on their bow are handled by equipment classes, but otherwise, it shouldn't matter. I don't stringwalk or facewalk and shoot some combination of gap/pointing/aiming and still have difficulty describing it, exactly, but I can say that the only way someone else is going to beat me is if they shoot better than I do. If I ever conclude that someone else's technique is so superior that I can't beat compete with my technique, I'll change techniques.

[Jeff Durnell]

:inst

:amen:

[Seagull]

Yesterday, after two months of working on POA, I pickup my bow and just could not get a group. Each shot I was adjusting some aspect of my form. It was like just thinking about each piece was preventing the whole from working. I was about to give up. But I took a break and let the dog run after my instinctively thrown frisbees. (No aiming :lol:) when the dog was secured. I returned to shooting, ignored my arrow point, stopped worrying over my form and instintively shot 6 arrow into the gold.

Some would say I cheated and used POA but just said I shot instinctively.

Other might see my story as proof that instinctive is "better."

I simply look at it as two months of training success. My brain did what I trained it to do without me verbally walking through each step.

[Papabull]

Seagull, I think that's the real key to success with POA or gap shooting.... you work on it, you train your form, you train your sight picture.... and I'll be the first to admit that while doing that, I'm not always shooting my best, but then when I'm not training and just shooting, it all comes together very well. No hassle, no "calculations", no worrying about form..... all that's done already and the shooting is natural and precise enough to make you feel pretty darned good about your shooting. :)

I think it's a lot like Kata training. You learn the moves and focus on form and technique during your kata training; not during the fight.

[Phil]

OK.. OK.. look this is the last time I'm going to tell you.. after this your on your own...
there is no such thing as instinctive shooting... all neuro muscular locomotor act are acquired apart from the primitive reflex patterns you are born with. There is no primitive "shoot an arrow into the target" reflex .After repitition movement are transfered to the Cerebral extra pyramidal system and can become central pattern generators...... I can go into lots of detail but I'm so fed up with this topic that I can't be bothered... so can we finish this now...:thankyou:

[Papabull]

OK.. OK.. look this is the last time I'm going to tell you.. after this your on your own...
there is no such thing as instinctive shooting... all neuro muscular locomotor act are acquired apart from the primitive reflex patterns you are born with. There is no primitive "shoot an arrow into the target" reflex .After repitition movement are transfered to the Cerebral extra pyramidal system and can become central pattern generators...... I can go into lots of detail but I'm so fed up with this topic that I can't be bothered... so can we finish this now...:thankyou:

Phil, after all this time, do you still think this is supposed to be a rational topic of conversation?

:lol:

[longbowguy]

Great! So now those of us who like to shoot that way can get back to it unmolested?

[Jeff Durnell]

Oh no, I'm on my own with the term instinctive shooting? However will I cope?

:waaah:

[Pinelander]

Blindfolds required.... and no cheatin' either!! :D

[Martin Farrent]

Jeff (posse of one) and Longbowguy,

Your brief posts demonstrate that you approach this issue with a religious slant.

Phil could show you how scientifically phoney the 'instinctive' theory really is... though one can't expect him to elaborate yet again (you might use the search function).

But that's totally beside the point with you two. You start on the premise "it exists", because that is how it feels to you. Any further investigation of actual fact seems superfluous to you, so why even participate in a discussion of it? You wish to believe, so believe. You really have nothing at all to say.

Shoot well, or not so well, and define it to yourselves however you see fit. If people believe in fairies or in Jurassic Park, they'll no doubt believe whatever 'proof' they can assemble. But, like yours, their ability to discuss it rationally will be minimal. They can assert, but they can not convincingly defend.

Best,

Martin

[Martin Farrent]

Longbowguy,

Why is a semantic approach to this issue useful?

Because it shows that the word "instinctive" is applied erroneously.

Why bother? Why not just accept colloquial use of the term?

Because the term has become a black box. People don't look inside.

And also because what some people consider an instinctive style of learning and shooting actually works for some people.

This being the case, looking inside the black box might be helpful or informative for all of us.

Phil has repeatedly shown that the standard theory of allowing the subconscious to learn without involvement of the conscious mind is totally flawed and unscientific.

Yet to some, learning to shoot 'instinctively' feels that way.

If we were to examine that, we might all discover useful information on how the subconscious can be harnessed for us - regardless of our shooting styles.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

Oh no, I'm on my own with the term instinctive shooting? However will I cope?

:waaah:

The same way you do when you're not on your own? Drop a few tedious one-liners and

:crawfish:

also known as... "the usual"?

[Papabull]

Great! So now those of us who like to shoot that way can get back to it unmolested?

Of course. I don't think anyone here was intentionally trying to interrupt you, anyway. It's not how you aim, it's how you shoot. Enjoy. :)

[DAS]

I personally believe that all the barebow techniques like POA, gapping and instinctive are nothing more than variations on exactly the same thing. That's why years ago as DA pointed out, it was never even questioned. They all use the eye, the anchor, the target, and the arrow. The only difference is how they are used and what percentage of your brain power is allocated to each. They are all learned techniques, and no one technique is best for hunting in every situation. The best hunters can switch hit and use the technique that fits the circumstance. You are not likely to knock a pheasant out of the air by gapping anymore than you are likely to make a clean kill shot on a deer at 40 yards with "instinctive" shooting. IMO, anyone who takes a dogmatic approach to this simple issue (and it is simple) is just locking themselves into a limiting situation.

David

[Jeff Durnell]

Martin, I was here for Phil's dissertation and I agree with much of it.

The reason many of my posts are blunt isn't 'religious slant', in fact, the converse is most likely the case. I'm a realist, and I feel, usually successful at remaining quite objective... insomuch that I simply find it hard to dedicate my time to this 'aimless' banter and the perpetual zealousness that it's rooted in.

Where I feel you lose objectivity is that you choose to adhere to some sort of notion that instinctive shooting is literally 'a theory' based on the use of true primal instincts, and that those who utilize the instinctive method of aiming believe it too.... that is who and what you argue against. Problem is, neither exists. I KNOW, as do those others I know that are intimate with the instinctive aiming method, that instinctive aiming has nothing to do with instincts. It's a label. The most representative of the method? Perhaps not, but it's there until something better is deemed more appropriate by the masses. Personally, I didn't name it, and don't care to rename it. I'm okaaaaaaay with it. If you prove sincere in an effort to simply elect a more fitting term that better represents the method, I'm willing to listen, and perhaps discuss it. But, if you choose to continue to try to debunk 'the theory', i.e. chase the instinct-theory ghost, then you're farther out there than I thought, and though I'll likely continue to allow myself to be entertained by such efforts, you won't get much argument from me.

It's nice out. I'm gonna go shoot before I go to work.......

ok, gotta get my game face on....

"...don't look at the arrow. don't look at the arrow. don't look...."

LMAO!!!

[Martin Farrent]

Where I feel you lose objectivity is that you choose to adhere to some sort of notion that instinctive shooting is literally 'a theory' based on the use of true primal instincts... instinctive aiming has nothing to do with instincts. It's a label.

No, I don't think you adhere to the instinct theory, Jeff. Some do though.

It's the theory of subconscious learning that I'm criticising. Phil's explanations and others have shown that the conscious mind must learn, before the subconscious can take over.

So the question is basically not whether you consciously notice the arrow, but whether you ever did.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

It should be pretty nice in your neck of the woods about now. Enjoy the Day, Jeff. And, yeah.... make sure you don't look at the arrow. That'll ruin your day for sure. :)

[rusty craine]

Yes the title is absolutely right.....not according to science......:)

Instinctive shooting -
Some yahoo hunting buddies standing around. One of 'em throw a tennis ball out among the cactus, dirt, rocks, and rattle snakes....lots of rocks. Three arrows come flinging out of the group, sending sparks off the rocks, arrows glancing off the rock to over yonder. One arrow hits under the tennis as it goes bounching off. More arrows chase the ball clattering off the rocks.

the arrows came from the instinctive shooters in the group. The others in the group - the non-instinctives shooters are not about to fling their $12 a piece carbon arrows out into all those rocks.........:)

Now you may well say.......hey none of the instinctive shooters hit the tennis ball square on. the best the did was roll and bounch the ball.......missing is not fun I want to nail the tennis ball....

Well, I not sure the guys missing the ball sure look like they are having fun.

Non-instinctive shooting
A bunch o yahoo hunting buddies are standing around. One of 'em asks if the guys wanta shoot some? Oh dang no one brought a target butt. One of 'em says hey I got some tennis balls in the trunck. They all look disdainfully at him. dude we are not out here to play tennis..... :highfive:

that is the only differnece I see :)

rusty

[Papabull]

I don't know what yahoos you've been shooting with, Rusty, but the guys I shoot with will shoot at any thing. Tennis balls, pop cans, the nose on a 3D target, you name it. Any notion that if a guy doesn't shoot "pure instinctive" he "ain't havin' fun' is about as valid as "if a guy ain't shooting with a conscious aiming system, he never hits anything he aims at.

There is WAY, WAY too much emphasis and WAY WAY too many general characterizations assigned based on what someone is thinking when they're aiming... and what someone thinks when they aim is the ONLY real difference between gap, split vision, instinctive etc. It's all what goes on between your ears when you shoot. To everyone else, the only thing they know is where your arrows hit.

[rusty craine]

PB - it is just a diffenernt mind set. I think you are the very guy that says missing is not fun. I was just pointing out the missing is acutually a lot of fun.

As a matter of fact I am not going to be fling my Redlines out into South Texas rock beds unless there is a real good reason (turkey, javie, whitetail). So I makes sure I got at least two rigs with me or one rig that I can shoot disposilbe arrows out of as well as "hit" the spot arrows.

I don't know about the guys you shoot with, they sound like a fun bunch but I like to shoot those targets that are mobil and energetic. All of the aiming is done.........oh heck here we are again......there ain't no word to discribe it... ah I know "instinctively"....no can't use that word, cause that word means we ain't aiming.....

yas see it is just a different mind set :)

rusty

[rusty craine]

BTW - my favorite trophy that I have taken over the years is a rock with one drop on blood on it and three black javie hairs. It was from an AZ javie hunt. I was one one side of a prickle pear and he was on the other about 4 yds apart. He made me in a flash and was at full speed in a second. I could see his back rocketting thru the cactus, heading for an open about 18 yds away as he was now swing to the left. He and my arrow intersected in the middle of the opening. The arrows was a little low and cut his brisket and three hairs off. I found the rock with one drop of blood on it.

Why in the world would evidence of my miss be my favorite trophy of all the game I have taken. It is the mind set thing. That shot took more skill than all the rest of the shots ever did. The fact that I missed keeps me humble and make a real good story :)

rusty

[Papabull]

PB - it is just a diffenernt mind set. I think you are the very guy that says missing is not fun. I was just pointing out the missing is acutually a lot of fun.

Different mindsets, indeed, LOL. I don't think I'm the one that said missing isn't fun (I think it was OZ, but I'm not sure), but I tend to agree that it's not fun and tends to be rather expensive. Or should I say that hitting is more fun than missing.

I guess if someone thinks missing is a lot of fun, that would explain a lot. :)

I don't care if you use the word "instinctively", though. It's pretty much an established term. It's just one method of aiming. The quibbling all seems to come in about what "aiming" means, and why "aiming" doesn't mean "using a sight", or why it's a sign of superior athleticism and hand-eye coordination and all the rest of the testosterone laden chest-thumping pi$$ing contests over something so simple as what we're thinking and what we're seeing when we shoot.

I miss the good old days when everyone's shooting did the talking for them. But today.... well, we all shoot the $hit on the internet and can't see anyone shoot, so anyone can shoot about as good as they can type, if they want to these days. So we quibble about how we aim instead of our scores. :lol:

[rusty craine]

Now ya know why I was so pleased to find that the Dalaa would let me shoot split-finger and string walking from the same nocking point. I got it covered. All I got to do is carry some POC seconds on my quiver along with my good arrows. Now I can fling arrows, missing with the best of 'em or shoot their eyes out string walking.

Life is good. I can have fun missing or have fun hitting with da same bow :)

rusty

[Desert Archer]

I'll lay claim to the "missing is not fun" statement. I may have not been the first to make it but I've typed it several times.

Not taking a shot at you rusty but this seems to be the new mantra for the "trad instinctive" crowd. They have fun but we target shooters with aiming systems don't. I've seen several posts over on LW expressing the same idea.

At the next indoor league night I go to I'm going to tell all those compounders they better stop laughing and teasing each other. I don't think they know they aren't supposed to have fun.

Oh, and I better warn the Olympic recurve target shooters I sometimes shoot with that they have to stop smiling, joking and generally enjoying themselves. They better get serious or someone will think they aren't looking at their sights.

Sorry rusty but this is a load of crap!

Dave

[rusty craine]

LOL Dave, I load crap alot.

Well I do them both. Just speaking for me it is more fun out with the boyz shooting tennis balls or a kick target then it is target shooting. I guess we are back to definitions again "what is fun" ??? LOL

To me target shooting is gratifing and I enjoy it. I am getting better at it but it doesn't fit my definition as fun. Infact I like to an osage switch to them load mouth disrepectful target shooters :). Different mind set for me.

rusty

[Martin Farrent]

Okay, so the other day I was shooting 'instinctive' and getting 4" groups at ten yards...

At least, I wasn't thinking about aiming. I was shooting arrows through a chrono and thinking about a consistent draw, clean release etc. And all 20 or so hit the spot.

They weren't nearly as accurate as they would have been if I'd been aiming more consciously. But I suppose you could call it "hunting accuracy", if the term were in your vocabulary.

Now this was probably instinctive by some people's definition. I'm sure I saw the arrow and aimed with it, because that's the way I aim. But I can't say I noticed it consciously, because I wasn't paying any attention to aiming.

So far, so good. I've practiced aiming a lot, and it now works okay even without much concentration at short ranges. No major miracle occurred.

But the real instinctive crowd would argue that this isn't instinctive at all. It's merely the subconscious version of consciously ingrained behaviour. For it to be true instinctive shooting, it would have to have been learnt subconsciously, too.

I say that is a fairy tale, unscientific and cannot work. But the instinctive purist insists that he has never consciously noticed the arrow as a reference point, not even when starting out.

The instinctive purist advocates that beginners ignore the arrow. I'm absolutely certain that they can't. It's inconceivable. Against human nature. And cannot lead to success.

The only way a beginner can ignore the arrow consistently is if he replaces it with another reference, like the bow arm. But many instincters also hasten to ensure us that they aren't using the Hanky method either. No conscious references at all. Not ever.

I don't believe it.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

Martin, once you're "known" to be a gap shooter, there's no instinctive shooting for you any more, anyway. Learning any conscious aiming method is a one way ticket to the land of the tradless as an eternal exile.

It's too late for you, I'm afraid. As the cliche goes, "you can never go home again".

[Pinelander]

It's too late for you, I'm afraid. As the cliche goes, "you can never go home again".
Well, I know that doesn't pertain to me. Nearly every time I shoot my bow, I always "go home again".... for a little while at least. I never did totally quit shooting instinctively, because it comes in handy now and again during certain hunting situations. The ability to do it will never go away for me... it will always be a tool in the box and used whenever I need to.

[Papabull]

You don't get it, Piney. Once you've been heard to admit that you know how to aim, none of your scores will count ever again because you'll always be "just a gap shooter" after that.

[Wiggles]

Intresting thread going here. Anyways I re-thought whole Idea about intictive shooting and I think it's instinctive somehow. BUT... That has nothing to do with not looking at the arrow. After shooting a great deal of shooting out form and way of focus almost stays the same and when we grab the bow we do teh same thing! Almost like instinct! Truth is now that I think about it any time you repetitively cause a progectile to move it's by instinct. So Ive come to a conclusion that "instictive" shooters are really just shooters who wish to use no device to aid in aiming. Then there are sight shooters and gap shooters or what ever you like to be called. I think we need a new name for instictive shooting. I myself would not consider myself a 100% instictive shooter now because when I shoot all I look at is the spot I want to hit but my arm moves around as does the rest of my body but I'll hit a spot and it feels like "oh yeah that's going for it" and that is when I release. I've tried other aiming methods but this is almost surefire once you got it. I wouldn't be 100% instinctive though because the "good spot" just kinda comes I don't put it there by looking at my arrow and moving my fingers half down my serving. But thats just my:2cents:

[Van/TX]

You are not likely to knock a pheasant out of the air by gapping anymore than you are likely to make a clean kill shot on a deer at 40 yards with "instinctive" shooting.

I don't know how anyone can make a statement like that. I'm sure some folks can hit moving targets by gaping. Byron Ferguson is a prime example. And I know danged well that a bunch of folks can make a killing shot on a deer at a mere 40 yards with "instinctive shooting".:2cents: It seems that some folks think that if they can't do it then it can't be done. I guess that's just human nature:) No big deal...Van

[Pinelander]

....The only way a beginner can ignore the arrow consistently is if he replaces it with another reference, like the bow arm.
Yes Martin, that's it! Well, sort of..... it's actually the bow HAND. The mind and eye can simultaneously, in a matter of seconds, point the bow/arrow at a target and hit it! But when the distance between the HAND and TARGET increases, the effectiveness proportionately dwindles. That's why instinctive shooters (trad bowhunters for the most part), correlate that type of shooting style with keeping their killing field CLOSE. Did you forget? It's about getting as close as possible to the hunted. Anything else is usually perceived as being less of a bowhunter and more of a target shooter. I hope that helps clear things up a bit.

[Pinelander]

Van, I'm sure there are some exceptional instinctive shooters. But I know from witnessing the main lot of average joes in the last 20 years that there aren't many that can shoot instinctively and accurately at 40 yards. And if they do, they aren't shooting "instinctively".... at least not as described by many of them as not referencing anything when shooting.

[DAS]

Don't put words in my mouth Van. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was unlikely, and I stand by that. I'm not just basing that on what I can do, but what I have seen from some of the best. Guys like Ferguson are hardly examples of typical shooters, or even good ones. I was just making the point that different techniques have their strengths and weakness. If you take issue with that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

David

[Seven Arrows]

I was watching Fred Eichler trying to hunt pheasant and shoot running rabbits on the boob tube the other night. I don't know for sure, but I think Fred would prolly consider himself an instinctive shooter, as the term is applied these days and he is a good shot no doubt. Long story short, he wasn't doing too good. He finally clipped a pheasant after at least a dozen tries on film and who knows how many not and zero bunnies. I found myself thinking that Hill would've made short work of the bunnies and prolly the birds as well, but after all Hill was first and foremost a small game hunter, nearly 2,000 rabbits to his credit and he liked to ride and shoot from horseback, something he picked up from Curtis who is the guy that turned Hill on to bowhunting in the first place. Hill didn't need sights on his bow to make shots near or far, but I've read his opinion of instinctive aiming and to say it was pretty low would be an overstatement.

[Larry Hatfield]

seven arrows, i asked hill one time if he saw the arrow when he shot. he answered that if you did'nt see the arrow you would have no idea where it was pointed in a tone of voice that sort of ended the discussion. that was back in the early sixties.
this discussion was'nt happening then, i was trying to ask how he aimed and did it in a stupid way.
larry

[Bill Carlsen]

My instincts are telling me to stay away from this topic...but the guys here are not like the guys "over there" so I will chime in. My background and education is in science, psychology and education. Technically the first post on this thread is correct. Everything about shooting a bow and arrow well is learned and is, therefore, not instintive by definition.

Not everyone has the same level of eye hand coordination or natural athletic ability...nor are we all equal in education and general knowledge in specific areas. Someone who can shoot a bow well with little training or someone who can shoot well after many years or doing it and call their aiming method "instinctive" are really referring to an innate or acquired ability and not an instinct. My eyes were open to this in two ways and rather dramatically. First time was right after I got a Ghillie suit. Mind you I was a strong proponent of the instinctive aiming school and would swear on a stack of Bibles that I did not see, nor did I need to see, my arrow to shoot well. The first time I hunted with the ghillie suit and had an opportunity to shoot a deer I was unable to take the shot. The cuff of the suit was very puffy (I had not experienced this while practicing with the suit) and the arm guard held the cuff up in such a way that I was unable to see my arrow at full draw and I could not shoot at the deer. I was lost in that instance but released the arrow relying on my "instinct" to make the shot....which turned out to be a grazing shot just below the brisket. So I had to accept the fact that I needed to see the arrow to shoot and thereafter, when using the ghillie I was always reminded of that fact if I forgot to "depuff" the cuff.

Second time was after I went to see my eye doc after missing a couple of PY caribou at easy ranges and thirteen easy shots at deer. Turns out that I had a cataract in the dominant eye affecting my depth perception and once that was fixed my shooting got good again. The lesson is that there is a lot to be said for what you think you don't see when you shoot.

So, I am trying to say that if a person who has a background in science, physioloogy, psychology, etc. would probably or could use the term "instinctive" but they would know that it was really an inappropriate use of the term. I use the term but do it only because most who do use it know that it is ambiguous in its definition as it relates to shooting archery well with little thought or for describing those who seem to be naturally good shots. As for those of us who do well on moving targets I would simply suggest that natural eye hand coordination combined with lots of shooting puts us in the ballpark. I know a lot of good shots who can shoot very well on stationary targets but do not have a knack for shooting moving targets. If it were really an instinctual thing then all of us in the species could do it well without any "WOW" factor when it all comes together on such a shot...it would not be an unusual or rare event and shooting at moving animals would not be considered unethical because if it were truly instinctive then it would, by definition, be an automatic thing to accomplish.

I'm rambling a bit here but the bottom line is that there is just too much learning and practice involved in shooting a bow and arrow well for it to be an instinctive behavior in the strict scientific definition of the word. The use of the word just points out that we all suffer from an abilty, at times , to clearly cognitively describe what we are doing when what we are doing is so complex but after a great deal of practice and experience we do it so automatically. I do not know of an accomplished musician who would say that they do what they do instinctively but after hours and years of practice and study they have reached a level of expert performance that to the novice, it seems effortless.:)

[Desert Archer]

Larry,

I'd love to be able to quote that some time, with your permission of course.

Dave

[Papabull]

Bill, you're right, I don't think I've ever heard anyone here say anything this stupid, "I guess when wolve's or every other preditor hunt they must be gap hunting or POA hunitng, cause if a human cannot learn to shoot instinctively, how then can any of the lesser intelligent species?"

I've heard lots and lots of really stupid remarks made during "instinctive shooting" discussions, but that may be the most incoherent non sequitur that I've ever heard on a topic that generates discussion aboslutely rife with non sequiturs.

[Seagull]

...the bottom line is that there is just too much learning and practice involved in shooting a bow and arrow well for it to be an instinctive behavior in the strict scientific definition of the word. The use of the word just points out that we all suffer from an abilty, at times , to clearly cognitively describe what we are doing when what we are doing is so complex but after a great deal of practice and experience we do it so automatically. I do not know of an accomplished musician who would say that they do what they do instinctively but after hours and years of practice and study they have reached a level of expert performance that to the novice, it seems effortless.:)

Having a brother who is profession musician, I agree he would not claim it is instinctive. Yet, natural ability does come into play. My sister can pickup any instrument and play a tune. However, she would never claim my brother is "cheating" by analysing his fingering, by using a metronome to guide his playing or by reading sheet music. :lol:

[Jeff Durnell]

... but does he look at the fretboard when he plays? That's the big question :)

[Seagull]

... but does he look at the fretboard when he plays? That's the big question :)

No, but then he has perfect pitch and well-trained fingers. :lol:

To be equivelent, we archers would spent thousands of hours with a coach (at $50-$100 per hour) working through every aspect of our shooting and then spent ten to twenty times as much time doing what the coach said. All the while moving to higher and higher quality of bows, arrows and other equipment.

Some do that, the best shoot and win at national and international contests.

[Jeff Durnell]

I've been plucking them both for 25+ years, there are some similarites. More and better equipment can make you a better performer, but to be accomplished, there's no substituting hard work and dedication in either venue.... but then, I haven't yet seen the guitarist's version of a compound, laser rangefinder and mechanical release. IMO, it requires more to realize a complete working knowledge of the guitar than it does the bow.... heck, there's 6 times as many strings to worry about :) Money? I spent more on my last guitar than I have on all the bows I've ever owned combined...... and it STILL don't play itself like my compound did :(

[Seagull]

... but then, I haven't yet seen the guitarist's version of a compound, laser rangefinder and mechanical release. ... (

My brother plays the violin. They have the high tech equivelent to the traditional instrument. But his choice is the the traditional 400+ year old instrument.

Maybe it has more "soul". :) But, he says he wouldn't get as may gigs with the high-tech version. Besides, the traditional version doesn't require a whole support team just to setup and maintain.

HUMMM...There may be more similarities than I orginally thought.

[Martin Farrent]

Not so sure about the similarities...

I play the violin, too - at least, I used to.

One of the very things that makes an old instrument better would make an old bow worse (deforming under strain).

No one would use a new-fangled electric violin to play chamber music. They are for constellations that didn't exist in Stradivarius' day - the need for more volume in relation to other instruments (e.g. in a rock band). Microphones don't do that job very well. Good violinists who play both classical and rock music generally have both kinds of instrument.

And anyway, aiming (to hit the right pitch with your fingers) is a very important and time-consuming feature of learning to play the instrument... and not a subconsciously acquired skill. There is also very little that is instinctive about the two tons of notes I went through - studies etc. And about all those pencil notes my teachers added.

There is no ease in music until you've worked for it. Or rather: ease does not generate ease.

Best, :)

Martin

[Seven Arrows]

Been a most enjoyable thread so far... (grin)

It's worthwhile to note that Martin's opening sentence, “ The distinguishing factor between humans and animals is that animals act out of instinct, and humans out of will.“ is, no offense, not correct. Humans do act from instinct (insert hypothalamus here) and animals do act from will (insert, dog doesn't come when you call it, here). Furthermore, will is closely akin to instinct and springs from the hind brain, not the fore, as do our emotions (instincts).

Martin may have meant “selective reasoning” when he posted “will,” but even that would be wrong. If I wanted to distinguish myself from an elk I would be correct in saying, “I am a biped and walk upright,” or, “an elk is an herbivore,“ but in matters of the brain the divisions aren’t as clear. Distinctions between human and animal behavior is subject to interpretation and is best kept species specific. Sheep and horses, for example do not communicate between the lobes of their brain, so a horse has to be taught twice. Once on each side. The wolf on the other hand has a bifurcated intelligence, complex social hierarchy, cooperates in the hunt, pup rearing and territorial defense; deduces and makes choices based upon testing and experience, evidence of selective reasoning.

Actually, the way humans and animals use their brains is very similar. We humans however, have more complex ones. Suffice it to say, this is a subject too wide and complex to be encapsulated in a few sentences, one can merely crack the door, but I’m sure that instinct, the mother of all desire, is omnipresent in all my strivings; hence, even though I use selective reasoning in my aiming process, at the core I’m an instinctive archer.

I think Steve's description of subconscious aiming defines pretty well what everybody calls “instinctive shooting.”

I have bowhunting friends that are shooting well below their potential and are quite content to continue doing so. I can't explain it, but any attempt to develop an aiming technique beyond trial and error, by using sights, gap method, clickers, changing grip, stance or other aids, is met with the stiffest resistance and they just work away at burning holes and picking spots, even though they must forget to do that a lot, because it’s the usual excuse for a miss. These guys blow numerous shot opportunities on big game, not so easy to come by in this country, relying on sheer perseverance to eventually fill their tags. From my perspective this resistance seems to be attached to their manhood and their “cool.” I try to set an example by doing, but I don't preach at them, I respect their choices. The only time I bark at them is when they make the mistake of riding me too hard about MY choices.

Someone mentioned confidence as a desirable addition to one’s kit. One reason I enjoy shooting a recurve bow well is it that when I step to the line between the ranks of compound shooters, I know that all eyes are on me…lol!

Enjoying the spotlight when others watch you shoot helps you acquire confidence. In spite of what your mother told you, being the center of attention is a good thing. I love to shoot in front of an audience. I love showing off, it does wonders for my ego and my accuracy, because it forces me to concentrate. When I concentrate I make a good shot. There's nothing like the feel of a perfect release and a well executed shot. It's addicting...

[Desert Archer]

I have bowhunting friends that are shooting well below their potential and are quite content to continue doing so. I can't explain it, but any attempt to develop an aiming technique beyond trial and error, by using sights, gap method, clickers, changing grip, stance or other aids, is met with the stiffest resistance and they just work away at burning holes and picking spots, even though they must forget to do that a lot, because it’s the usual excuse for a miss. These guys blow numerous shot opportunities on big game, not so easy to come by in this country, relying on sheer perseverance to eventually fill their tags. From my perspective this resistance seems to be attached to their manhood and their “cool.” I try to set an example by doing, but I don't preach at them, I respect their choices.

Seven,

I have a friend who is exactly the same way. He has wood arrows with huge feathers and heavy points. After 20 yards they just die like a plane running out of gas. I have tried to get him to shoot at longer distances and argued he could use lighter arrows to get flatter trajectories. He isn't interested and actually practices not holding at (approximate) anchor too long so he doesn't aim. I've given up trying to convince him of anything and just congratulate him when he occasionally hits one in the center of a close target.

I do not understand the mind set but there's enough of it out there that there must be an explination that is beyond my comprehension.

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

It's worthwhile to note that Martin's opening sentence, “ The distinguishing factor between humans and animals is that animals act out of instinct, and humans out of will.“ is, no offense, not correct.

No offense taken... I didn't write it. 'Twas Richard. :)

Best,

Martin

[Seven Arrows]

No offense taken... I didn't write it. 'Twas Richard. :)

Best,

Martin

Thank you Martin, once again you demonstrate the graciousness and good sense that I've come to expect and admire...

[Martin Farrent]

I can't explain it, but any attempt to develop an aiming technique beyond trial and error, by using sights, gap method, clickers, changing grip, stance or other aids, is met with the stiffest resistance and they just work away at burning holes and picking spots...

Perhaps it's because aiming methods require some boring work to get started. You can't just learn someone else's gaps or stringwalking stitch counts by heart during coffee breaks in the office. To get any basic system figured out for yourself takes several whole days on the range - and that's before you practice it.

Perhaps that's not everyone's idea of fun. They'd rather miss than spend a few tedious afternoons on such plodding calculations and experiments.

Also: if your form isn't up to scratch, you won't (for example) find ascertaining gaps or POA's or anything else all that easy. Like most people, I started out with a POA system - except in those days my form was so crappy that my ten-yard POA was in a different part of Africa or the Arctic every day.

Best,

Martin

[Van/TX]

It seems that some folks think that if they can't do it then it can't be done. I guess that's just human nature No big deal...Van

Just thought I'd repeat that because it's seems more true everytime a thread like this come up:lol:

Perhaps it's because aiming methods require some boring work to get started. You can't just learn someone else's gaps or stringwalking stitch counts by heart during coffee breaks in the office. To get any basic system figured out for yourself takes several whole days on the range

Martin, you must be one smart dude if you can figure out an aiming system in a few days. Would this be field or 3-D? :lol: ...van

[Desert Archer]

Double post...sorry.

[Desert Archer]

Van, did anyone here ever say "it can't be done" or are you just putting that interpretation on what they have said? I don't remember anyone saying the so called "instinctive" shooting can't be done and there are probably even a few who do it very well. I haven't seem them personally, but there aren't that many recurve or longbow "trad" shooters in my area so maybe I missed the good ones.

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

Martin, you must be one smart dude if you can figure out an aiming system in a few days. Would this be field or 3-D? :lol: ...van

Van,

I meant figuring out the details.

You decide to gap and read how it works - but you still need to ascertain your specific gaps.

Best,

Martin

[Greywolf]

I've read all the posts and some I agree with some I don't. some make no sense and some do.

I shot them all, cbow,rifle shotgun pistolslinshot throw rocks what ever. it's all fun.

But, I shoot instinctive. I use the "sight picture" method, I just see the big picture focus on where I want the arrow to go pull, anchor and release and Hopefully it goes there. I don't use sights or even see the arrow most of the time or if I do I don't pay attention to it. maybe I should!

But, for me to make MY point, I do this. I have a stick in the ground 3 feet in front of and off to the side of the backstop. I have a $13.00 drugstore lazer pointer, I place it on the stick and tape it into position pointing to the backstop somewhere. this is what I shoot at in the dark, no lights to see my bow, arrow or yard in front of me to the backstop. All I shoot at is the red dot, no reference points at all, zip zilch notta, just..............maybe muscle memory thats all I use. and I don't shoot over 20 yds with my recurve. 6-15 yards most of the time.

Now, in Greywolfs book that shooting! instinctive or what ever it's just shooting. but yes, I do also know that point on is 58 yds.:2cents:

Aloha Nui Loa

[Pinelander]

....but yes, I do also know that point on is 58 yds.

Now THAT'S funny.... :)
Many would say that you just CAN'T be an instinctor, if you know what your "point on" is, LOL.

I said this somewhere else on a different discussion recently....
"most everybody can make layups easily enough".

Maybe I'm only speaking for nyself, but when it comes to instinctive shooting, I believe it's best to stick with the layups. Leave the 3-pointers to those that use an aiming system other that of the "no see 'em" method.

[Papabull]

It seems that some folks think that if they can't do it then it can't be done. I guess that's just human nature No big deal...Van

That wasn't a very well placed shot. But I guess that's what happens if fire off a shot without aiming. While there may be a few people that think no one can do brain surgery because they can't do it themselves, I'd wager most of those people are getting inpatient treatment in a hospital that has rooms that lock from the outside.

But, on the other hand, I'll have to admit I'm a little skeptical about some things. For example, if someone told me they could flap their arms real fast and fly around like a little hummingbird when no one was looking, I'd be skeptical. Sure, I can't do it and maybe that's why I'm skeptical but there's nothing wrong with being a skeptic. It's better than being a gullible fool.

All generalizations are false, Van.

[Martin Farrent]

Instictive shooting does not exist... at least, not as a single phenomenon.

The term is wrong semantically. We might probably live with that if we knew exactly what it meant anyway. But we don't. Various 'instincters' characterise it differently, and we can be fairly sure that the underlying 'subconscious' aiming techniques are highly diverse. Some claim to notice the arrow, others their arm, while some say they notice nothing at all. Some say it's the ingrained version of formerly conscious aiming. Others maintain they never aimed consciously in their lives.

The only feasible generalisation is that instinctive shooters are (to varying degrees) unwilling or unable to describe their technique verbally.

Personally, I consider that a weak point: in my book, verbal description is a prerequisite of discussion, critique, analysis and improvement.

But that's not the issue here. The important thing is that we keep discussing a heterogenous phenomenon as a homogenous one. Which is a waste of time.

There's more common ground regarding the 'instinctive' philosophy - the claims commonly made to explain the mental component of instinctive shooting (such as the fallacy of subconscious learning). But we can't fruitfully discuss any concrete technique as 'instinctive', because no such technique is universal (and we lack detailled description anyway).

Best,

Martin

[Jeff Durnell]

Again reachin' too far and lost your balance.

Instinctive shooting does exist, and isn't a phenomenon. It's an aiming method that's proven to work very well for many folks over the course of thousands of years. It can, and has been described and defined in plain English, you simply wish to pick it apart and not accept any of it for your own personal reasons. Granted, some folks CAN'T describe it very well, but that doesn't mean it's not what it is, or that they're not using it effectively.... as in, just because some folks can't describe how an internal combustion engine starts, runs, and ultimately puts power to the pavement so that we can completely understand it without being a master mechanic ourselves, doesn't mean their car, or the working theories within, don't exist.

"The term is wrong semantically. We might probably live with that if we knew exactly what it meant anyway. But we don't."

Guess what, 'WE' don't care. 'You're' gonna HAVE to find a way to live with it, cuz it isn't going anywhere. Kick and scream until you're blue in the face..... it'll be here long after you're gone. :sorry: 'bout your luck.

"Various 'instincters' characterise it differently, and we can be fairly sure that the underlying 'subconscious' aiming techniques are highly diverse."

Highly diverse? Well, which is it? Most instinctive aiming critics claim that the differences between instinctive aiming, gapping, poa, and even the use of sights are minimal, and are functionally divided by nothing more than where we choose to focus a greater percentage of our concentration. Yet you claim 'great diversity' within just instinctive techniques? You're not being a tad melodramatic are ya?

"Some claim to notice the arrow, others their arm, while some say they notice nothing at all. Some say it's the ingrained version of formerly conscious aiming. Others maintain they never aimed consciously in their lives."

First off, if one consciously 'notices' his arrow, arm, or bow's position in relation to the target, he's not shooting instinctively. On the other hand, the fact that one knows things are present in the periferal vision isn't the same as using them as a conscious reference to aim with.

Secondly, how is the fact that archers can come to instinctive aiming from more than one direction discrediting to the method or the method's description? Folks certainly can become instinctive shooters after conscious references become so deeply engrained that they ultimately require less and less conscsious thought until the sub finally takes over all such duties. AND, instinctive shooting can be learned without first using a conscious aiming reference to get started. That's how I did it. I started with a longbow by focusing 100% of my concentration on the target. Only AFTER I'd become intimate with instinctive aiming and my range outgrew my method(arrow point encroached on my view and concentration) did I begin using it to aim consciously on shots that 'required' it.

Now I can do both. I can shoot instinctively for several shots, shoot p.o.a. for some, then switch right back to instinctive again, no problem. If we're able to control where and how we focus our concentration, switching between aiming methods can be done like flipping a switch, and literally from shot to shot.

"The only feasible generalisation is that instinctive shooters are (to varying degrees) unwilling or unable to describe their technique verbally."

PapaBull said it best in another post somewhere, "All generalizations are false." and I agree.

BTW, I feel I can adequately describe the instinctive technique to someone who is willing to comprehend. But if I feel there's no possible WAY to describe it to one's 'satisfaction' because their personal bias creates an insurmountable hurdle for them, I'm not going to bother.

[Martin Farrent]

Again reachin' too far and lost your balance. Instinctive shooting does exist, and isn't a phenomenon. It's an aiming method that's proven to work very well for many folks over the course of thousands of years.

Again, not reading very attentively and making strange claims. ;)

How do you know it's worked for thousands of years? Any Roman records? Any evidence in cave paintings? Any reference to it in the accounts of Agincourt?

...and isn't a phenomenon.

Look up "phenomenon". It can be used totally neutrally. Calling it a phenomenon would actually recognise its tangible existence - but more so than it actually merits (because, as I say, it is not a homogenous thing).

Yet you claim 'great diversity' within just instinctive techniques? You're not being a tad melodramatic are ya?

Did I claim that? Nope. Just said it's too diverse to be described with a single label. Just as I wouldn't describe stringwalking and use of a FITA sight with a single label (other than "aiming", which also includes the 'instinctive' variant).

First off, if one consciously 'notices' his arrow, arm, or bow's position in relation to the target, he's not shooting instinctively. On the other hand, the fact that one knows things are present in the periferal vision isn't the same as using them as a conscious reference to aim with.

If you know it's in peripheral vision, then how do you know you don't notice it? Just because you don't make a point of noticing it? "Conscious" does not imply a special emphasis. You would have a real hard time drawing a boundary between things you notice consciously and those you are only subconsciously aware of.

Besides, some people do say they shoot instinctively and admit to noticing references. Are you the only guru who defines all this? Or are you prepared to let other instinctive archers offer their own descriptions?

Secondly, how is the fact that archers can come to instinctive aiming from more than one direction discrediting to the method or the method's description?

Who's discrediting what? I didn't make any value statements at all. I only said the various styles involved are too diverse to be usefully considered under a single label - and that the common denominator is a shooter's unwillingness or inability to describe the actual aiming process in detail.

AND, instinctive shooting can be learned without first using a conscious aiming reference to get started.

I really wish Phil would weigh in once more when I read stuff like the above. But why should he? For those so inclined to ignore it all again?

Best,

Martin

[Seven Arrows]

First off, if one consciously 'notices' his arrow, arm, or bow's position in relation to the target, he's not shooting instinctively. On the other hand, the fact that one knows things are present in the periferal vision isn't the same as using them as a conscious reference to aim with.

I feel I can adequately describe the instinctive technique to someone who is willing to comprehend.

Jeff, I'm very willing to comprehend your explanation if you'll take the time to explain it. Not sure that I'll be able to, but I'm willing to try.

Let me pose a scenario for and maybe you can tell me how you'd approach and solve it, in the spirit of your words where I've quoted you.

Here it is.

You are hunting black bear, on the ground, spot and stalk. You've spotted a very respectable bear with a full coat, no rubs, tearing a rotten stump apart, fully absorbed in his task. He's 50 yards down hill, 30% grade, offering you a broadside shot. You've been watching him for about a quarter of an hour and you're satisfied that he's a good boar and not a sow with small cubs sleeping nearby. He's not going anywhere until he's eaten the last termite larva. Due to the terrain, this is as close as you can get to him. Any attempt to close the distance will send him running off. Can you, using your method, shoot this bear behind the shoulder in the crease, exactly where the broadhead must go, on the first try and know with certainty, beforehand, that the arrow will strike within 4 inches of where you want it to?

We often hear that instinctive aiming is a superior hunting method. Using instinctive aiming, would you take this shot?

With my aiming method, that's a dead bear. What say you?

[rhust]

For me I can not shoot that shot, just by looking at the spot. I would use the tip of my arrow about a foot high, and make the shot. Now this is assuming that I know the distance. The problem with "most" hunting shots is that you do not have time to judge yardage, and unless you are using a laser range finder, no one is perfect at judging distance. The gap or point of aim method is completely dependant on judging yardage, and good form. This is why I use a combination of both. Even though I think 50 yards is a pretty long shot it is doable. Live animals can do a lot of things in the time it takes your arrow to get there.

[Wingman]

The gap or point of aim method is completely dependant on judging yardage....

Yardage estimation still takes place in instinctive shooting, the only difference is that the process is subconsious and the result similarly buried.

Ken

[rhust]

Subconsious range estimation is much quicker. When you use gap or point of aim alone you rely on it much more than when shooting instinctively. Use whatever works best for you. If you shoot instinctive and cant shoot 50 yards, than you either get closer, or dont take the shot. Nothing wrong with that. If you have to shoot stuff that far away you can always shoot some other type of weapon. To each his own.

[Seven Arrows]

Rhust, we've already been looking at this bear for 15 minutes and we can surmise by his behavior that he's not leaving anytime soon. I'm very curious how Jeff will deal with it.

[rusty craine]

A good my of the abo archer of years gone by didn't have a numbering system. so at least as I understand aiming, the abo system if not instinctive would have to far different than I can reckon with.

I have read that at lest one precolumbian Indian tribe had a counting system the was sumpin like one, two, three, many. that would make analysis of range a bit tricky.

I took three sling shoots to elk camp last year. Jason, one of the hunters, took to the sling shoot readily. In a day of practice he was killing grouse out of the tree. I ask him how he aimed :).......he said he didn't. hmmmm???

I think there are instinctive shooters, in that one has very good hand/eye control and practice :)

rusty

[Seven Arrows]

Subconsious range estimation is much quicker. When you use gap or point of aim alone you rely on it much more than when shooting instinctively. Use whatever works best for you. If you shoot instinctive and cant shoot 50 yards, than you either get closer, or dont take the shot. Nothing wrong with that. If you have to shoot stuff that far away you can always shoot some other type of weapon. To each his own.

I have my own means of calculating yardage and we can discuss that after we hear from Jeff, but it's been my impression that yardage estimation is an unneccessary step when you are using the instinctive technique. Now, Hill used to refer to what I call the bracket method, using the first arrow to estimate yardage. One over, one under and the third one in the boiler room, but in the scenario I posed to Jeff, typical in the country that I hunt bears, there is only one shot opportunity. He'll either hit the bear or the bear will run away when the arrow hits nearby. With the techniques that I use, that's a dead bear no guess work. I just wonder if the instinctive method is really the wonderful hunting advantage that it's claimed to be. This shot isn't all that difficult. Shooting downhill the arrow will be gaining momentum all the way to the target. It will hit like a freight train. I think the honest truth about instinctive, wherein you don't consciously use references for aiming, is that the average archer/hunter is severely limited and must content himself with close shots because the farther shots are too difficult to execute with certainty. Trick shots at 10 - 15 yards ain't that bid of a deal IMO.

Now if you're sitting in a tree over a bait barrel, that ain't hunting anyway, that's an execution. The bait bear knows you are there, he just doesn't know that it's gonna be his last meal. You can't equate that to free range hunting, it's shooting. To those that make whiny noises about the ethics of far shots I say, if you don't know how to do it don't, but don't cast aspersions upon those who can. I personally feel that the other ways of aiming are far superior to instinctive, as a hunting method, and they can be easily taught. Instinctive doesn't seem to be as easily transferable. At any rate I don't see the evidence of it.

[rhust]

I want to make the point that at long range and animal can decide to take a step, or turn in the time it takes for your arrow to get there. Shooting a target at 50 yards is one thing. You have all the time in the world, and it doesn't move. You might be able to make that shot every time, but what if the animal moves. You than have a bad hit on your hands. I know even if you do everthing right things can go wrong. If you think that is a high % shot than go for it. Only you can decide that. Use whatever method you like.

[Seven Arrows]

I want to make the point that at long range and animal can decide to take a step, or turn in the time it takes for your arrow to get there. Shooting a target at 50 yards is one thing. You have all the time in the world, and it doesn't move. You might be able to make that shot every time, but what if the animal moves. You than have a bad hit on your hands. I know even if you do everthing right things can go wrong. If you think that is a high % shot than go for it. Only you can decide that. Use whatever method you like.


Then you also need to make the point that an animal can decide to take a step, or turn, in the time it takes for your arrow to get there at close range. Shooting a target at 12 yards is one thing. You might be able to make that shot every time, but what if the animal moves? You then have a bad hit on your hands. I know that even if you do everything right things can go wrong. If you think that is a high % shot than go for it. Only you can decide that.

You see? If it's true at 50 yards, it's true at 12. Your logic doesn't work because if you don't shoot because the animal might do this or that and it might! The only option is never to shoot, because the animal might move. I've killed a few animals at what you're calling long range. I've never had one move. I've often heard it used as an excuse to justify a bad shot, as in "He moved just as I released", but if you know how to kill animals it doesn't happen, as a rule. In fact, the further away you are, the less chance there is to spook the animal with noise or movement.

But, this has nothing to do with aiming techniques and I'm still waiting for an explanation of this invaluable hunting strategy that doesn't involve conscious aiming references and works so much better than ones that do.

[rhust]

If it works for you than who cares what someone else does. Who is to say one is "better" than another. Maybe their method works as well for them as yours does for you. If your method produces the results you want than use it, if it doesn't than you need to find another way.

[Seven Arrows]

If it works for you than who cares what someone else does.

I don't know. You tell me. Who cares?

Who is to say one is "better" than another.

Who? The one that can demonstrate the better "one" is.


Maybe their method works as well for them as yours does for you.

Yip....maybe it does. What does that have to do with explaining how to shoot without conscious references?


If your method produces the results you want than use it, if it doesn't than you need to find another way.

Well.... I know that I can predictably and routinely make the shot in the scenario that I posed to Jeff. Can you? Can Jeff? If not, why not? I can point you to the path that will get you there, but I don't think you want to go to the lengths that I would suggest. I'm very serious. I have no interest in internet pissing contests. I only seek to learn and to impart what little knowledge I have to anyone that can use it. I'm always asking questions and when someone shows me a better way I'll adopt it immediately regardless of what ever my suppositions were before.

I don't believe that instinctive aiming is a superior hunting technique. I think it is an inferior hunting technique. A person has every right to operate within the boundaries of so called instinctive methods when they hunt or shoot targets and I don't care one way or the other if they do. It's only when somebody tells me that it's a better way and can't back it up that I express my opinion. If aiming without conscious references is better, prove it by example or argument. I don't know about you, but when I go hunting I intend to kill an animal quickly and cleanly. It's hard enough to kill them with a good aiming system. I don't need to further complicate it with inferior technique.

[Pinelander]

As I said previously.... "most everybody can make layups easily enough".

Now, I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to instinctive shooting, it is less and less accurate the further and further the distance becomes (compared to that of other aiming methods). Why is that?

I believe it's because using hand/eye coordination only is less effective at further distances. Instinctive shooting relies on it to "point" one's hand at the target. The further away the target, the more effect the trajectory of the arrow has on one's ability to point precisely at that target. Some would say, well.... the same trajectory is present when "aiming" as it is when shooting "instinctively", which is true.

BUT, I never understood why some say that instinctive shooting does not require knowledge of the distance. If that were the case, the instinctive "point" would be the same at any distance, but we all know that it isn't. And since it isn't, some kind of "adjustment" must be made. What is that adjustment? It isn't the gap, it isn't the point of the arrow, it isn't the bow arm, and it isn't the bow.... because it has been said time and time again that no reference is being made to anything regarding those things.

So how does one precisely hit a target that one has no idea how far it is? OK, so we're not talking about calculated yardage numbers, we are talking about visual ques that says it is "this far" because it is engrained in the subconcious as to how to point "whatever" towards the target based on a "this far" scenario. Even though some will say that estimating a calculated yardage number is distracting and just another thing to deal with, I would also say that relying on subconcious memory as to the trajectory required to hit "that far" by pointing "however".... is just as difficult, if not more so.... than calculating a number and using a set method of aiming at that distance.

From my experience of shooting instinctively for many years, it works well for close targets and even those that are moving within close range, but for me.... it has no distinct advantage when shooting longer range. It is just too much of a guessing game for me. I suppose that is why many of today's new traditional bowhunters have opted to use this style only. It fits right along with the "keep it simple" reasons that they put away their high-speed compounds, rear/front sights, gadgets, etc. They want to bring themselves closer to the shooting, rather than the bow equipment. Only problem is, shooting without sights can still have a rear and front sight, but they just don't realize that it's there OR they don't want to have anything to do with "aiming" anymore. So whalaa, instinctive shooting it is.... and of course most everybody can make layups easily enough.

[Jeff Durnell]

Seven Arrows, you said, "It's only when somebody tells me that it's a better way and can't back it up that I express my opinion. If aiming without conscious references is better, prove it by example or argument."

Well, two things come to mind following that statement. One, we should be done here, because I never told you instinctive shooting was superior to anything else. And two, your statement is false... because, since I didn't, apparently it's not 'only when'.

Why's it always got to be about who or who's method is better or best? Like I said before, I'm not a competitive person, so claiming or proving to you that 'my' method is better than 'your' method doesn't seem at all important to me.... if anything, it seems, schoolyard-ish. Not into internet pissin' contests? LOL

For clarity however, I will comment on your shot scenario. I wouldn't be able to shoot any animal under any circumstances instinctively at 50 yards. That's beyond my point-on range, and even if it wasn't, it would be beyond my ability and desire. Shooting targets instinctively, I'm good to about 30 yards, which is farther than I ever hope to 'need' to shoot at a critter.

In spite of that fact, I won't shoot at a 50 yard distant critter with a bow with ANY aiming method. I had many opportunities to do so when I shot a compound with which I could tightly stack a dozen arrows in a vital-sized target at 50 yards and would STILL not take a shot at that distance in the woods. Experience marinated in hard reality has taught me that things beyond my control can happen at half that distance that result in missed or wounded animals, and if I shoot farther, those things happen more often.

[Jeff Durnell]

Pinelander, you said, "BUT, I never understood why some say that instinctive shooting does not require knowledge of the distance."

If by "knowledge of the distance", you mean consciously evaluating and assigning a numerical value to that distance, then no, instinctive shooting does not require it.

If folks claim that "does not require knowledge of the distance" means that even the subconscious does not need to evaluate the distance and apply what it's been shown the arrow will do at that distance, they're wrong.

"And since it isn't, some kind of "adjustment" must be made. What is that adjustment? It isn't the gap, it isn't the point of the arrow, it isn't the bow arm, and it isn't the bow.... because it has been said time and time again that no reference is being made to anything regarding those things."

It's all of those things and more..... Personally, I've never said that "no reference is being made regarding those things", I contend that perhaps ALL of those things are being referenced, just not consciously. I'm GLAD they're there for my subconscious' use.

"So how does one precisely hit a target that one has no idea how far it is?"

You answered your own question with this...

"OK, so we're not talking about calculated yardage numbers, we are talking about visual ques that says it is "this far" because it is engrained in the subconcious as to how to point "whatever" towards the target based on a "this far" scenario."

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

You also said, "Even though some will say that estimating a calculated yardage number is distracting and just another thing to deal with, I would also say that relying on subconcious memory as to the trajectory required to hit "that far" by pointing "however".... is just as difficult, if not more so.... than calculating a number and using a set method of aiming at that distance."

Of course it gets more difficult to train the sub the farther we move back and the farther the arrow drops. The amount of time and training needed to ingrain the trajectory of the arrow and become accurate with it increases each time we move back. Perhaps that makes 'learning' to shoot well at that distance just as difficult as accurately estimating the exact distance to the target for evermore, but once it's ingrained, it comes easily without dedicating any conscious thought to it whatsoever.

"From my experience of shooting instinctively for many years, it works well for close targets and even those that are moving within close range, but for me.... it has no distinct advantage when shooting longer range."

I agree.

[Seven Arrows]

Seven Arrows, you said, "It's only when somebody tells me that it's a better way and can't back it up that I express my opinion. If aiming without conscious references is better, prove it by example or argument."

Well, two things come to mind following that statement. One, we should be done here, because I never told you instinctive shooting was superior to anything else. And two, your statement is false... because, since I didn't, apparently it's not 'only when'.

Jeff, please read my post again. I didn't say that you had said it was better. Rhust interjected himself and his opinions and I was addressing him. That's very clear if you read it in context with the exchanges between myself and Rhust. I was addressing him and the argument as it is waged across the internet. It is often claimed to be a superior hunting technique. I don't agree that it is. Personally, I prefer to let each individual make his own choice in the matter. As far as you're concerned, I am interested in your explanation of how it works and what are the reasonable expectations and limitations of the method, technique, whatever you choose to call it. You said that people weren't willing to listen. Well I'm listening. Let's get on with it.


For clarity however, I will comment on your shot scenario. I wouldn't be able to shoot any animal under any circumstances instinctively at 50 yards. That's beyond my point-on range, and even if it wasn't, it would be beyond my ability and desire. Shooting targets instinctively, I'm good to about 30 yards, which is farther than I ever hope to 'need' to shoot at a critter.

That's fine and we don't need to belabor the issue. Let's accept the 30 yard limit and talk about that. If the bear was 30 yards and everything else was the same, could you with certainty predict where your broadhead would hit him before you shot? In other words, can you guarantee a good hit or is 30 yards still too far using instinctive aiming technique?

In spite of that fact, I won't shoot at a 50 yard distant critter with a bow with ANY aiming method. I had many opportunities to do so when I shot a compound with which I could tightly stack a dozen arrows in a vital-sized target at 50 yards and would STILL not take a shot at that distance in the woods. Experience marinated in hard reality has taught me that things beyond my control can happen at half that distance that result in missed or wounded animals, and if I shoot farther, those things happen more often.

That's fine... I respect your choices and would never encourage to do otherwise. I have a different experience than you do.

So....what can I expect to achieve with the no conscious reference aiming technique? What are the parameters and how do you do it?

[Seven Arrows]

To the general assembly.

I feel it needs to be stated that the motivation for my commentary isn't designed to win arguments or score points. When it is contentious, it is done in an effort to frustrate argument and bring the reader to a point of surrender in order for the evidence of how things work to surface.

The brain communicates with itself and processes information provided to it through our senses and in turn sends signals to the muscles and other parts of our anatomy both voluntarily and involuntarily. In truth this is how we aim and shoot. I would postulate that the more information that we can provide it with the better it will perform for us. The amazing thing about the brain, showing us what a miraculous organ it is, is how well it serves us even when we deprive it of information.

I think this entire issue should be looked upon as a game with rules. We invent a game, decide upon the rules and then play the game according to the rules.

Check out this link, some interesting stuff here...

http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html

[SubconsciousShooter]

The distinguishing factor between humans and animals is that animals act out of instinct, and humans out of will.

Are not humans animals?

[jdupre']

I wouldn't have a problem with the term "instinctive shooting" if it wouldn't be for the people that insist that they don't see either the bow or the arrow when they shoot. They insist that they do not use them for reference. If that's the case, why the big emphasis on getting the arrow up close to and directly under the eye. If they don't use them for reference, they should be able to shoot just as well with a high chest anchor,right?

That being said, if a person can put the arrow where he wants to, it doesn't really matter what method he uses.

[Jeff Durnell]

If they say they don't see them, they misunderstand. They see them, they just don't consciously reference the orientation of them to the target, they do it subconsciously.

When I aim instinctively, I see the ground, trees, sky, bow, my arm and hand, the arrow, etc... I just don't focus on them in the least or consciously utilize any such thing in my aiming. It's simply unnecessary.

[Stagmitis]

Jeff,


While standing, If you focus at an object while your hand rests by your side then slowly raise your hand with a pointed finger towards the object....

When you see the finger come up in the periferal vision is this a "concious" recognition of the pointed finger or a "subconcious" one?


What do you think?

[Hawksnest88]

What do you think?
Not aimed at you Stag.:)
I think, that way back in my shooting in the early 60s, no one ever asked me how I shot, and they didn't care. I was either freestyle (sight) or instinctive (name of the class), I shot "instinctive class".. What does it matter to anyone how I put the arrow where I want too. It is a combination of actions different for different situations. I couldn't teach it to my wife & I tried, or anyone else if I wanted to, I learned it on my own. My wife has her own system, not based on any one thing either, and I don't understand her system. :) It's my system that I shoot, and I'm not about to try to explain all of it, it doesn't really matter. My wife, by the way, it an excellent barebow shot. It gives me a chuckle how people think you must explain how you shoot barebow, who cares? :2cents: Bill G.

[Desert Archer]

Not aimed at you Stag.:)
I think, that way back in my shooting in the early 60s, no one ever asked me how I shot, and they didn't care. I was either freestyle (sight) or instinctive (name of the class), I shot "instinctive class".

This may be a regional thing but when I first tried field archery in the early '60s, the two classes were Freestyle (sights) and Barebow (no sights). In the mid-West where I was there was no "instinctive" class in those days.

Dave

[Hawksnest88]

This may be a regional thing but when I first tried field archery in the early '60s, the two classes were Freestyle (sights) and Barebow (no sights). In the mid-West where I was there was no "instinctive" class in those days.

Dave

Then you evidently never shot field in PA. LOL Why do the little NFAA skunk pins I have on my hat say "Instinctor" ? :) Bill G.

[Desert Archer]

Then you evidently never shot field in PA. LOL Why do the little NFAA skunk pins I have on my hat say "Instinctor" ? :) Bill G.

Can't answer that Bill. I can tell you I remember reading about the '66 and '67 NFAA National "Barebow" champions in "Bow&Arrow" magazine. The 66 Champ shot a Black Widow. The 67 Champ created quite a stir as he shot 3 under, used multiple anchor points and shot a Hoyt PM with some funny looking metal rods sticking out of the riser. Oh, and they weren't called the "Instinctive" champions or "Instinctors".

Dave

[Hawksnest88]

Can't answer that Bill. I can tell you I remember reading about the '66 and '67 NFAA National "Barebow" champions in "Bow&Arrow" magazine. The 66 Champ shot a Black Widow. The 67 Champ created quite a stir as he shot 3 under, used multiple anchor points and shot a Hoyt PM with some funny looking metal rods sticking out of the riser. Oh, and they weren't called the "Instinctive" champions or "Instinctors".

Dave

And by those later 60s years, PA had changed their "no sight class" to barebow also. I still have my first class card, A Instinctive" , next shoot I shot into AA, over 450. Just to show you that there in fact was an NFAA "Instinctor" pin, I just took this picture of one of my 3 pins on one of my hats. These pins are probably 40+ years old. Maybe you weren't shooting barebow back then, because everybody I knew & know from back then shooting barebow, has some of these NFAA pins. LOL Bill G.

[Desert Archer]

Maybe you weren't shooting barebow back then, because everybody I knew & know from back then shooting barebow, has some of these NFAA pins.

Bill, I never said there wasn't such a pin or that I didn't believe you. Just that the two classes I knew about were Freestyle and Barebow and that was in the early to mid '60s. Since you folks do field archery so different in PA than the rest of the country I thought maybe the Instinctive class was a PA thing. Sorry I brought it all up now.

I've never shot anything except Barebow, even way back then. I was a teenager who couldn't go to the actual shoots put on by the small club North of where I lived. They were on Sundays and I had to be in church with my family. I shot there on the Saturdays I could get the family car (once or twice a month during my Junior and Senior years of HS). Ran into enough members to learn the rules but that was about it. Never was any good but I got hooked on field archery anyway.

Dave

[Hawksnest88]

[QUOTE=Desert Archer]Since you folks do field archery so different in PA than the rest of the country I thought maybe the Instinctive class was a PA thing.))


Probably was a PA thing in the real early 60s, then they conformed to the NFAA about mid 60s. BG

[Phil]

To throw a little (hopefully) scientific light on this subject, I was recently invited to deliver a series of lectures on the Neurophysiology of Human Movement. The lectures deal with how we acquire motor (motor meaning co-ordinated brain and muscle function) skills and how we refine and perfect complex motor tasks. Although the main subject of the presentations are how children learn complex tasks and what happens when a Cerebral insult occures before during and after birth, I think these Powerpoint presentations will go along way in assisting the understanding of how a Subconscious shot is achieved.
If it's OK with the moderators and we can find a way to link to the files I'm sure some of the members will find them interesting.

[Martin Farrent]

I would certainly love to see them, Phil.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

OK with me, Phil. What size is the file?

[Phil]

OK with me, Phil. What size is the file?
Note quite sure how big they are. They're on my work computer so I'll put them onto a CD bring them home tomorrow, and we can take it from there.....
.....hope the members find them interesting

[Highlander]

If you are an Instinctive shooter (there is such a thing and I believe it to be so) then it does not matter about all the other speculation of which method is best and have the most defined and laid down principals but if you are not an instinctive shooter, all maters, especially the search and hope that one day you may find what is truly missing from your personal form and pre shot certainty of hitting the spot you wanted.

Ever took a shoot you didn’t have to think of
Ever took a shot spontaneously
Ever took a shot you didn’t know you had
Ever wonder who beat you to the kill only to find out it was you

Will I would say if any of the above apply and the mark was hit with subconscious certainty with the knowing you were going to hit even before you did, you certainly would have partly eluded to the Instinctive style if ever so briefly.
Now Human nature is a questionable one and as such we in-turn question all, so I would agree that it is easier to believe that instinctive shooting does not exist if only because of the lack of Scientific proof, but what is not known today may be found out tomorrow!

People do have instinct and it does play a part in most things, to say someone is a 100% instinctive shooter 100% of the time now that is the real question, if there are such individuals then I take my hat of to them!


“when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

[ahshoot]

Humans definitely have instincts. My thinking is that we have several sources that direct us: 1) instinct, 2) culture, and 3) what we've discerned on our own. Our behavior is so complex and a mix of all these things that it is usually impossible to discern whether something is an instinct or not. One clear case though is touching a hot stove. The information doesn't even go to our brains, the pain impulse hits our spine and then back to the hand which retracts. This is clearly hard-wired into us.

[ahshoot]

Back to the issue of "instinctive" shooting from a scientific perspective, we have to define it first. Then based upon this definition we have to deduce a set of things we should observe if it exists. Then we must see if we observe these things. If we do not observe all of them, then it (according to our definition) is disproved. If we do observe our predictions, then instinctive shootins existence is not necessarily proven but it is not disproven. The possibility that another type of shooting that also shares the set of characteristics is still a possibility.

My take on "instinctive shooting" is that we likely don't have an instinct to shooting a bow, but we have evolved a few things like hand-eye coordination and the ability to estimate yardage and make mental calculations in our subconscious. To use an over-used example, when you look at something and then throw a ball to hit it, you are making a series of mental calculations. Our ability to do this is also manifested in our bow shooting at times, I think. So I would replace "instinctive" with the ability to use in-born abilities that operate within our subconscious.

[longbowguy]

Well, that is a pretty nice definition. I doubt you will manage to replace "instinctive" with it. Instinctive is the term that has been used for many decades for what you are describing. Few of us who do it have thought the term was literally correct. Many of us prefer not to think too much about how we do it. Thinking about it interferes with doing it. Perhaps we don't really know how we do it, and that is how it must be.

But you would be unwise to doubt that it can be done, at a very high level, even at considerable distances.

[Highlander]

How about this!
Last week a gent joined our local club; he had not shot before, and was presented with a recurve with an un-adjusted sight, he was told just to shoot at the target, and instructed on stance only!


Distance 10m:
The first arrow - over the target!
He was told do not use the sights they are not set!
A couple quite close to gold.

His next set of three
GOLD GOLD GOLD
A few more sets
And last, GOLD GOLD GOLD

When asked, he said he was looking at the bull’s eye, but felt he was pointing down and bottom right of the target to hit it, when asked why he just said it felt right.


Scientifically explain this one?

Instincts exist of that there is no doubt what are they? Well this has to be kept as simple as possible, less we get lost in definitives, so in basics instincts are inherited responses gained over time or generations, this is not to say that our father was a good baseball player so it follows that we should be also, but if generations, over millennia learn something whether it be perceived to be calculations and computations of distance in the present day! What does it become in the future or when is it scientifically? accepted as instinct?


In the beginning there was Nothing!

[Desert Archer]

Scientifically explain this one?

He has above average hand/eye coordination. People like that often excell the first time in any number of sporting activities.

The range I practice at on Saturday mornings has beginner and JOAD classes. For every one like the guy you described I see a dozen who miss a 52" target bale at 10 yards the first few times.

The JOAD (Junior Olympic Archery Development) instructors start beginners shooting 3 under so they can "gun barrel" and have some chance of hitting the bale.

Dave

[Highlander]

I can see the point of hand and eye co-ordination but is this realy not all we are trying to say that Instinctive shooting realy is.

Would instinctive shooting still be in existance if hand and eye co-ordination was absent?

Instinctive or not in archery terms!

Spending a little more time on the matter may shed the light that instinct and instinctive may differ ever so slightly (Not in the scientific community a hasten to presume) but if we can not conform to the Scientific parameters then are we all wrong and should now be looking at toeing the line and renaming one of our oldest forms they may even have to do a back to basic analogy of there classification?

Well my argument would be that instincts are undeviating unthinking impulses to do something, with no negatory intervention of thought, (excluding the basic manners of existence, breathing, eating etc) whether theses are matter of course over time or not may not matter to archers, but Scientists may not approve of the suggestion as this presumes a learning function, well I’m no Scientist and the area would be out-with my resolve!

The preamble to Instinctive archery on the other hand feels to me to be suggestive in the manner of the unthinking process but not impulsive, as was said before we were not born to shoot, not yet anyway! We just do it mimicking instincts, now the scientists would probably say humans have no Instincts as we are driven by thought this may be true? But until they come up with a better classification that meets all the criteria I think we are well within our right to classify the oldest form of Archery as INSTINCTIVE – without the intervention of conscious thought


Be Intuitive and shoot subliminally!!

[jdupre']

I think if you gave someone a bow that had never seen one before and told him to shoot the arrow into the target, he would INSTICTIVELY look down the arrow and line it up with the target. IMO, it would be unnatural to do it any other way.

The reason the natural pointing motion is done by ALL people in ALL cultures with the arm and finger coming up into the pointer's line of sight is because people use this sight picture for reference. If it was not natural to do it this way, people could just as well point from the hip.

Now, can accurate shots be made with no CONSCIOUS attempt at aiming? Yes- in certain situations. But there is a reason for the sights on rifles, pistols, crossbows, cannons, howitzers,etc.-- and there's also a reason that Howard Hill and Byron Ferguson are two of the top archers of all time. Day in and day out, using a sight or the arrow point for reference is the most accurate way of getting a projectile to the intended target.

More popcorn please.

[ahshoot]

My bottom line...can't prove ANYTHING about how someone else shoots. Also, can't prove anything about the lot of archers, as too much variation to come up with any hard and fast categories. So what is this debate really all about?

[estacado]

Instinct in archery applies to a label and the natural ability of the human animal to point at something without thinking. Nothing is instinctive if it takes 10,000 attempts(shots) to ingrain it. The shots are required to put data of arrow flight into our "plasma carbon computer". Throwing a ball requires practice to do it as does shooting freethrows, they arent instinctive activities. The subconscious is at play once we ingrain the process and the picture. We need to see therefore shooting is a visualization ergo an aiming
process.

Because I dont see things at a conscious level doesnt mean it aint
happening somewhere in the old noggin', it cant do anything but. Your brain requires data or it won't function. If I have Alzaiemers, I aint going to be doing anything instinctual even if I can see it. No data no 'workee'.

The Instictive Badge/Label is a convenient way to describe something we cant explain, like UFOs. I dont know how I do it, so it must be instinctive.
Oh, wrongo, 10,000 repetitions made it seem like its instinctive or 2nd nature.
Ah, maybe we should call it 2nd Nature Aiming, more correct but certainly not as cool sounding.

I shoot barebow, and my brain through repetition does amazing things, like a natural point when I change my anchor. Must be instinctive right? I dont think so, more a response to lots of data stored over the years and maybe in the DNA from some primordial space in my little pea brain. I shoot with a sight and it removes confusion on where to point the bow on a target. I can do the same by pointing my bow hand and have it assume a seemingly natural
hold or position. Its like magic.... no, I'm pointing my bow hand like I used to with my old sling shot. No sights just point and shoot. It wasnt instinctive, I had to learn how to shoot the darn thing through repetition.

As you can see, I dont like the term instinctive. I like '2nd nature shooting'
because it better explains the process. But, the term "instinctive" eliminates the necesity of how do I explain how I shoot without sights to the "trigger bow" guys. They just look 'glassy eyed' and swoon at the sheer magic of it all,
now thats cool.

Estacado

[Highlander]

Ahshoot brings up the point of what is this debate all about?

Does the Scientists classification of Instinctive apply to our use in archery!

IT WOULD APPEAR NOT! For lots of reasons explained throughout the thread!

Estacado:

Brings the thought process, Alzheimer’s into play with data for the brain, and it won’t work if there is no data….

Well I can say this approach would certainly impact 2nd nature shooting or activities of a similar learned nature! But would it really have an impact on instincts:

Lets pose this one to you! We have a person in near vegetative state (brain function Minimal) NO Workee to coin a previous phrase, NOTE: I have stated before that the Scientists say we have no instincts, but for arguments sake how is the man surviving he cant think but yet he breathes, he cant and is not thinking about breathing but yet he exists!

So to say no data No Workee then instinctive must not be present I think is not 100% true, or at least as far as we can depict in as near scientific terms as possible

[estacado]

The animal requires oxygen ergo it breathes through gills/lungs/skin. Inate bodily function. The no workee statement was used in the context of the thread, is instinct part of the shot process? My belief is only in the pointing process is an instinct part of the shot process, we can do that before we start shooting. That is the instinct part of the equation, after that it is repetition. The respritory system is part of the body and is used to oxygenate our blood to make things work. It has to be part of our DNA makeup, and while not instinctual but surely inate. Try to stop breathing, you will pass out if you do. An involuntary bodily action forces you to use your lungs.

The archery shot process is a physical activity which requires cognitive action(data input). No physical capability, no cognitive capability, no workee. Fun
discussion over the hot stove here as we enter the Fall.

Estacado

[Highlander]

I think we agree on the innate functions these are likened to Instincts but are not – I think this as close as we are going to get in a scientific circle of acceptance!

As for conscious actions in archery I agree you have to pick up a bow, you have to put an arrow in place, but that is all cognitive or at least is most of the time! Now the debate kicks in! that is what this thread is all about, after you have the bow and arrow at hand can you shoot it without conscious thought:

If you see yourself pointing/adjusting – it is not instinctive
If you calculate anything consciously - it is not instinctive

There is defiantly a pointing issue in Archery, but my opinion is that instinctive archers do not consciously follow this practice

I think innate functions could be on the correct track, but does Innate archery have the same ring as Instinctive archery…..

[estacado]

Therefore if it is not conscious, and is a learned activity, it is 2nd nature, not instinctive. Pointing is instinctive or 2nd nature, but surely an innate ability. And as mentioned, 2nd nature-innate-aimless aiming dont have the cool sound of Instinctive.

Estacado

[Highlander]

Not all non-conscious learned activities are second nature only the habitual ones ingrained over time are!
Second nature would give the apparent perception of being innate but is not!
Instinctive is not learned or at least not accepted to be!

So the phrase:
“Pointing is instinctive or 2nd nature, but surely an innate ability” has a lot of discussion to come I think?

Pointing is! – another topic but not for this site!

[estacado]

My head is starting to hurt.

Estacado

[Desert Archer]

I'll toss in another perspective, based on 30+ years as a firearms (handgun) instructor. The pointing thing is, I suspect, pretty instinctive. Those gifted with excellent hand to eye coordination are probably better at it (faster and more precise) but everyone can point at something. As I learned teaching the handgun, pointing at something isn't the whole equation. The act of shooting (shot execution) comes into play once you have "pointed" at the target.

My handgun students could do everything right in stance, grip and sight alignment (pointing) but if they screwed up the trigger control they still missed. In my experience archery is even more "execution" sensative. Let's say you are pointed in exactly the right place to have your arrow arc into the spot you want to hit. Fumble the release (creep, pluck, peek, etc.) and you are going to ruin that excellent pointing. Make a bow arm/hand mistake (collapse, torque, drop, etc.) and again you ruin that perfect INSTINCTUAL pointing.

Bottom line, if we had an instinctive aiming ability, we would still have to learn how to shoot the bow.

Dave

[longbowguy]

Good point. LBG

[estacado]

If they learned how to shoot the bow it wouldnt be instinctive and they couldnt wear the BADGE.

Estacado

[Martin Farrent]

Bottom line, if we had an instinctive aiming ability, we would still have to learn how to shoot the bow.

And that's the problem. Using a systematic aiming style, you know a miss points to a shooting error.

Using a 'fuzzy' aiming style, it can indicate a shooting error or an aiming error. You can't tell.

Best,

Martin

[Desert Archer]

Using a 'fuzzy' aiming style, it can indicate a shooting error or an aiming error.

Exactly! I gave up "instinctive" because on the bad days I had no idea if it was a form or aiming problem. Turned out to be some of both (LOL).

Dave

[rusty craine]

I don't know about science and science's understanding of the brain. What I do know is this...

ya take two pulleys. put one at the bottom of a tree and one way at the top. get a 20# wieght and hook it to a cord that is ran thru your pulley system. Tie the other end of the 100' cord to a foam kick target. when ya pull the kick target to the end of the cord (pulling the 20# up the tree) and release it, the kick target shoot out across the shooting lane.

Take a bunch of flu flus out and see how long it takes before you start hitting the kick target regularly. It really doesn't take very long. I think our brain adapts quickly and handles complex dimensional problems in ways we don't entirely (at least I don't) understand.

Now I don't understand what "instinctive" shooting means either but I do beleive there are others ways to hit a target than direct aiming (although I am a direct aimer)

Letting your right brain work out the problem and lay in a solution works if you don't try to figure out what happened with you left brain.

rusty -uses both side of brain- Craine

[Highlander]

I think there is a lot of diversity taking place so a quick re-cap is in order...

Looking again at the question, Instinctive not according to Science, well they (scientists) are debating amongst themselves and cannot definitively answer or agree on whether we are or are not so therefore as scientists do, if something cant be proven it must not exist!

As was said before the criteria is below:

a) Be automatic
b) Be irresistible
c) Occur at some point in development
d) Be triggered by some event in the environment
e) Occur in every member of the species
f) Be un-modifiable
g) Govern behavior for which the organism needs no training

The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behavior is not fully instinctual. now thats a nice one "NOT FULLY"

The main reason for arguing against human Instinct is cognitive thought!
So the method of attack for us, and the scientists on our side would be to prove all the above were present in us at a stage when the thought process was in its infancy!

e.g. why does a new born baby cry when it is tested by doctors, does this small pat on the rump cause the baby to think 'oh that's sore I must cry' or do we all have that built into us and we cry at birth 'if our vocal apparatus works' If we are hungry at new-born stage and the pain in our stomach makes us want to cry does this qualify?

The answer again is, that if scientists cant agree! Then we have no chance to think they are going to believe, Instinctive archery exists, especially with a developed thought process in place!

So the real debate is whether we can prove that beyond all doubt, instincts exist in humans, then transpose this into what we as Archers believe to be the finesse of shooting
INSTINCTIVELY

[ahshoot]

You can't prove anything beyond all doubt. Even if you found something that fit your criteria, there is still the possibility of another phenomenon existing that also fits the criteria, plus others. This is the basis of Popper's falsification principle widely followed in the sciences. The best we can do is either continually try and fail to falsify something or compare the strength of evidence between multiple, competing hypotheses using Bayes theorem.

I still find it hard to believe that any scientist is unconvinced of the existence of instincts. Sure support of this is the inheritance of certain behaviors. I interact with scientists everyday and have never heard this discussed. The dominant paradigm in biology, evolution by natural selection, paves the way for believing that humans have instincts.

[Highlander]

Ah my good friend you return!

My statement is in regards to scientific conformance towards the belief we as human beings have instincts or not!

“So the real debate is whether we can prove that beyond all doubt, instincts exist in humans”

Now I am no Scientist and they as we have a matter of opinion, and also no one can be correct 100% of the time all the time, even Albert Einstein was proven Inaccurate (I daren’t say wrong) so the uncertainty principle has to be taken into account!

If we look further at what you have said these factors can be taken as guide lines for certain criteria but not all!
If I was born and am now typing this, let a scientist disprove I exist, I do beyond all shadow of a doubt! As you say and I have stated in an earlier post, may be the Scientists need to re-assess there definition (as in the definition lies the problem) of Instinct, all we can do is try to prove the existence to meet their current criteria, and thus satisfy to date an answer for this thread!

Now widely (not accepted by all?) accepted or not, your stated Theorem’s & Principles fall under there own envelope and as such form there own paradigm, so until someone comes along to disprove them do they really matter, if they are not accepted by all and cant be proven beyond all shadow of a doubt!

Then this thread is worthless and we shouldn’t care what scientists think and

ARCHERY CAN BE INSTINCTIVE!

Lastly finding it hard to believe scientist, are unconvinced of the existence of instincts! Well using their own principles against them I am not surprised they never agree on anything and don’t find it hard to believe that some do and some don’t!

The final clarification in the context of this thread was that scientist readily accept under there own current definition that instincts exist JUST NOT IN HUMANS

Varying branches of science probably have their own beliefs and criteria?
Evolutionists (Darwinian), sociologists, biologists, psychologists and any combination there of, plus a multitude of others. Just try to get all them to agree first, apparently this was done in the 60’s and hence the quoted criteria and that is all we can try to conform to, to answer this thread at this time!

[WTBrown]

When ask what and how I shoot I respond with "I shoot instintively.I have always referred to my stlye of shooting "Instinctively" I don't aim, When I aim I lose my arrows. I've tried sights,referrence marks,arrow tips ect. I have yet to find a sighting method that work for me .My eyes are poor and I either see the target or the sight not both.

I shoot my "Instintive way" out to 20yds pretty good.I like to get up close with either bow or pistol so there is not much need in extending my range. I just need be become flawless from 20yd in . MY biggest problem is lack of consistent release.

Maybe the term"instinct" is what bothers people on this subject.God gave us arms,hands and a brain. We learn at a very young age to point.Or can I say start to point at things and make eye contact. I don't believe anyone teaches us to do point. So is it an acqcuired behavior or learned.? I know is like a male dog learning cock his leg to pee. Is the dog taught or what? Now I have know a dog owner that tried to teach his dog to do the leg cock. Never did learn.

To get back to pointing. We learned that when we throw a football or baseaball or a rock we point with the oppisite arm. Every had much luck aiming a football or aiming a baseball.No we point with our opposite hand hence (bow hand) and throw.

Now we were taught to throw and pitch but pointing really comes naturally or "Instinctively". Should we say " Inherently" instead of "instinctively".

AS along is my nock point,draw lenght, bow arm angle, bow hand anlge,head ange,shoulderblade angle,arrow spine weight,fletching,nocks,points,string,brace height,etc. is correct and a clean release is all present all I have to do is point and pointing comes "instinctively".

So yes I will continue to refer to my method as "Instinctive Shooting" same method as off hand pistol or off hand rifle or off hand shot gun.

It is scientifically sound to say that "Eye Hand Cooridination" is a trait that alot of Humans have.There are alot of humans that do not have this "Instinctive" "Eye Hand Coordination" trait.

These my fellow "Instinctive Shooters" are probablly the ones that can not shoot this way and are constently raising this issue and saying mean things. I guess they feel a little inadaquate that they are missing a basic human trait,"Pointing" and lack eye hand coordination.

There is no other, proper way to refer to the way we shoot except "Instinctively" If this does not please you then learn to point.

[Diamond Paul]

I'm not sure why people generally think that shooting instinctively is somehow "harder" than using an aiming system. I'll agree, it is, for dang sure, harder to consistently hit things using the instinctive method. But it is also a much easier way to learn to shoot, IMHO. It takes much more work and time to develop a conscious system of aiming, and so it would seem that formal aiming systems are, indeed, the "harder" way of doing it. I would not include using an actual sight attatched to the bow in this; I mean aiming systems used barebow. I do think, as I have heard the grumblings many times, that "instinctive" shooters often view those who have developed a more accurate system of aiming with the barebow as "cheaters;" i.e., "I would have won, but he shoots _______________________ (gap, string walking, face walking, etc., fill in the blank)." There does seem to be a large group of archers out there who decry anyone who chooses to use a more consistently accurate method of shooting. How else can we explain the numerous ads for traditional shoots that say, "No string or face walking, index finger must touch the nock" ? I would say that, if you don't like getting beaten by such shooters, get better, or perhaps explore an aiming system. As for myself, I shoot pretty well by "using a mental sight picture developed by shooting regularly at different yardages, combined with consistent form." For me, systems, such as gapping, have proven too hard to learn! Therefore, I prefer to do it the "easier" way, although it is less accurate in the long run. Paul.

[estacado]

I am not a scientist, I am a Texas Aggie which in Texas makes me the butt of many ethnic like jokes. Instinctive style shooting is a learned skill, ergo thousands of arrows to get good and stay good. The style is referenced by the reference used, none, well at a conscious level. Having delt with Instinctive induced TP for the last 6 years, I have a empiracle take on this subject.

Every shot with a bow has a reference at a conscious or subconsious level.
Sight reference shooters use; arrow tip; Gap; Split Vision; Pointing; etal.
Instinctive style shooters use the same references, they just dont remember it taking place. I know, been there agonized there, done it alot. You can only focus on one reference at a time, period. Tried multiple references, you have to cylce through them, cant use more than one. Any aiming method is really the same at a subconcious level, practice your POA and then bore a hole is the target for one shot and the arrow will usually go where you look.
Your pea brain is using your POA reference at a subconscious level, you just wont remember seeing it.

That is why it is impossible for a Zenstinctive archer to explain how they aim.
Every one is using one if not several subconscious references in lining up the bow hand, arrow, and anchoring for the shot. I have proven this process to my satisfaction. If you dont remember seeing that ole ham fist in front of your nose, doesnt mean you didnt see it. Jay Kidwell in his book talked of windage and elevation learning. That aint instinctive, its a learned skill.

POA to start out shooting is a good way to start programming your plasma carbon computer with the required # of pictures for your brain to use as a
reference. Once POINT of reference is learned at varied ranges, it is easy to progress to GAP using those reference points in your peripheral vision. From there is an easier step to a so called instinctive style, than if you had shot 10,000 arrows to get to that level using poke and hope methodology.

The # of data points is less confusing to our brains if they are a finite value than if guessed at. We need multiple repititions to accomplish this whole process if we are to succeed, its called practice.

I deest the baseball toss analogy, its a badge we wear. Hey, I can throw this ball to third base without thinking about the range or speed. Yeah, but you had to learn the skill, you werent born with it. As stated above, it became an automatic process that we dont have to think about. The term instinctive is just that a convenient term to describe a pretty complex process. If we dont remember seeing a reference in the shot process, that is somehow superior to seeing the arrow tip or some other reference, i.e. cheating. No, its the same reference everyone else uses, we just forgot we used it. An old codger passing on idle thoughts about dogma and such.

Estacado

[Papabull]

This whole "debate" really shouldn't be happening at all. If you shoot without sights, you're just as much an "instinctive" shooter as anyone else, semantics notwithstanding. In a simpler time, "shooting without sights was THE definition of instinctive shooting." The division between "pure instinctive" and "everything else" is purely ideological in nature and designed to distinguish one group above all others for no reason aside from elitist yearnings. Instinctive, gap, split vision, etc., are all in the same class, using the same equipment and there is no inherent or natural "superiority", "talent" or "skill" beyond an archer's actual shooting ability. We're all equals and we compete and shoot on an equal field. No aiming method makes any person or any group more special or more prestigious than any other person or group.

Use what works best for you.

[Rednef]

I agree with you. However haven't you ever been accused of "cheating" by a self proclaimed instinctive shooter becuse you aim? I have. Generally that only happens after I post a really good score. I have also seen flyers advertising for traditional tournaments declaring "instinctive only." How could anybody ever prove that a shooter was aiming? The fact of hitting the target is proof of cheating? Do you have to take an I.Q test and flunk it before you can be an instinctive shooter?

[Papabull]

Oh HELL yes, I've been accused of "cheating" by "aiming when I shoot" after shooting a good score. Everyone I know who shoots worth a damn has received that sort of treatment at competitive shoots. This sort of ignorance is intensely repugnant and has permeated our sport. Most of the people on the receiving end of this treatment aren't willing to stand up and speak out about it, either, because they know how they'll be treated if they do.

[estacado]

I m willing to stand up to the abuse, no one, it seems, is willing to say it to my face. I will give them the "eat sh.. and die" look which is usually enough. They, virtually everyone, sure do likes to give me instruction when I shoot poorly. Everyone it seems is an archery coach. I dont solicit and dont want
the inputs. I m a better coach than they are, I just have "brain farts" more often than I need to. By the way, MSN.COM has an article on Brain Farts on their Web Site today. Someone is actually studying my malady.

Estacado

[Rednef]

"Ignorance... where even angels fear to tread."

[ahshoot]

Consciousness, perception, and the brain in general are too complicated for anyone to claim they DEFINITELY don't see or use the arrow as a reference. Our brains have all kinds of weirdnesses that cause us to either block out information to make things more manageable or pick up and use information that we don't know we are even aware of. Case in point is that we all have a blind spot in our vision (caused by the eyes construction) that our brain smooths over so we don't see it. My point is that you don't know whether in lighted conditions you are using the arrow as a reference or not. I've heard people talk about shooting in the dark as a proof. All that proves is that you don't use the arrow as a reference when shooting in the dark. Instinctive archers could all be subconscious gap shooters and they would never know it.

[estacado]

Ahshoot, exactly, they are subconscious Gap Shooters, they just dont remember it happening, therefore it didnt. ERGO, aimless aiming. No way to convince or cajole them into thinking otherwise, I have been there and revert to it on occasion as do most of us who remember what we see in the shot sequence. It works, it just isnt as consistent as most of us would like.

Estacado

[Odie]

Hehe, you just try to call them "crypto-gappers" and see what happens :) :boxing:

[Papabull]

Odie, that speaks volumes. If a person considers it a despicable insult to be associated with "gap shooting", you know that they consider gap shooting to be dispicable and you know how much superior they feel they are to "gap shooters". Like all bigotry, it thrives in shadows and darkness and hidden places and speaks in innuendo and insinuation. It is always important to remember, though, that this isn't a reflection on or characteristic of instinctive shooters It's a reflection on and characteristic of specific people who demonstrate specific behaviors.

[estacado]

Wow PB, introspective myopia, new field of study.

Estacado

[ahshoot]

My intent was not to say that instinctive shooters are subconscious gap shooters. I was saying that they can't know if they are or not. For that matter, conscious gap shooters may have elements of what they consider instinctive shooting in their shot sequence and not know it. I'm just pointing to the limits of our self-knowledge.

[Papabull]

My intent was not to say that instinctive shooters are subconscious gap shooters. I was saying that they can't know if they are or not. For that matter, conscious gap shooters may have elements of what they consider instinctive shooting in their shot sequence and not know it. I'm just pointing to the limits of our self-knowledge.

I follow you competely, Ahshoot. I was in a really big rumble on the LW last week with people who vehemently opposed my remarks proposing that we can't know for sure because it goes on inside the mind and, ironically, the one thing that the mind most belligerently defies understanding is itself.

[ahshoot]

In order to understand the brain's function we'd have to be smarter than ourselves :)

[Odie]

Well, I was just kidding as to "crypto-gappers" :)

Fortunately, in Poland we have none of this (neo)trad cr..p (yet?) :)

Most of the people that I know who are shooting bows are pretty much ignorant as to the differences between instinctive, gapping, poa, stringwalking etc.

In fact there is some misconception here in Poland - ppl are thinking that if you are aiming, then you must use a sight (ergo: shoot a full fita bow). If you are shooting barebow - you just don't aim... But when I am telling them abt different aiming methods, they usually see the light and are not opposed.

As to gap / instinctive - at shorter distances (less that 15 yards) I do it "instictively" (not seeing the arrow and blah, blah...). Don't get me wrong, I think I am using in fact some kind of gapping but semi/unconsciously. But for longer disctances i have to gap CONSCIOUSLY and I am quite aware of where the arrow is. I have yet to meet somebody who accuses me of "cheating" :)

I could not get consistent with instinctive at more than 15 yards, no matter how I tried, so decided it was not for me :) I do not hunt and my targets do not run away so I guess I can hold and aim as long as I want.

And yeah, I agree that people with attitude "I am holier/purer/better than thou" are everywhere, and it's not archery specific ... Hard to deal with them. I usually just shrug and walk away. Life's too short...

[George D. Stout]

Seven Arrows, in your scenario, even with sights or cognizant aiming style you can't say that you will hit that bear with certainty....because the bear makes the final decision whether or not to move. Perhaps your horse is a little to high for you today 8^).

I've been hunting for five decades, and shoot what has been called instinctive for pretty much all that time. How I go about it is how I go about it. It's like trying to show you how to throw a curve ball, I guess. Sure...it has other mitigating factors; that unconscious knowing that the arrow is in the periphery just where it belongs; that the form is repeated properly; that the release is repeated properly, and so on. However, I wouldn't take time to explain it even if I could, simply because you seem to be a horses-ass looking for a horse to land on. I could be wrong about that though 8^).

Why five pages of fuss over a word or idea? That's about as dumb as telling us that science has proven that bumble bees can't fly. Some of you guys need to change your meds.

[Papabull]

Why five pages of fuss over a word or idea?

That's a heck of a good question, George, but five pages isn't really all that much compared to all the discussion, debate and petty bickering that's gone on for years in this sport and even in other sportsl like handgunning. It tells us that there's a lot of investment in "I'm instictive and you're not" sentiment as the definition of who's "in" and who's "out". It's made worse by the internet because you can't just tell a fellow - "Yeah? why don't you shut up and go get your bow and prove how superior you really are". That tends to put an end to the b.s. real quick.

So I don't know the real answer to resolving the bickering. It won't be solved on the target range and it won't be solved with circular arguments about semantics. And I don't see the ususal suspects agreeing that we're all equals regardless of aiming method preference happening until sometime after the 2nd coming when the lions lay down with the lambs.

I'm sure there will be more long, drawn out discussions, debates and arguments laced with ugliness for many years to come with TradTalk or without TradTalk. With Papa Bull or without Papa Bull. I'm afraid we have to chalk it up to human nature.

[Silverback]

I've been bowhunting 41 years so my minds gotten old n feeble I guess, but I fail to understand why it matters what people call their shooting method or whether they use the correct word to describe it , as long as it works for them , its the old "if ya argue with em enough their opinion will change and be the same as yours" syndrome

[Bowlim]

With thanks to RC:

"well as a matter of fact we have high jacked the word instinctive as it applies to an archer and it does have a semi-defination even though we haven't decided exactly what the real defination is. I fgure we are stuck with the nomencalture so we best get on with it"

And the other thing I will add to this is that if a sport gets overly interested in science without really the ability or need to process the info, then the science changes and you are stuck out in the cold, because some person with a PHD thesis to ram home invalidates your terminology.

In fly-fishing, some people say "bugs", which isn't specific enough; some say Blue-winged Olives, which is almost good enough to tie up a match; And some people spout off some latin terminology while others do their best to figure it out and learn the names. Then someone from science comes along and splits the class and your highbrow, "I don't even know latin" terminology is all in the gutter. Science is inherantly and gloriously unstable and variable, and not a good basis for building a language.

Take a medical diagnosis. When someone is having a heart attack they may present with arm pain, and all kinds of other little revealing clues, none of which is as abovious as heart pain itself. But the good doctors hear what is being said and get the point. In the same way, people without an excessively pedantic turn of mind, know exactly what is being said when someone talks about instinctive shooting.

By the way "1961"!!!??? Didn't they think the moon was made of cheese back then?

[blue_ridge]

I've been bowhunting 41 years so my minds gotten old n feeble I guess, but I fail to understand why it matters what people call their shooting method or whether they use the correct word to describe it , as long as it works for them , its the old "if ya argue with em enough their opinion will change and be the same as yours" syndrome

I agree. Semantics don't matter much when the arrow is released. Words are just words. The english language is full of words whose meanings don't match the origin of the word. So what? There's nothing scientific about that. What is a limb? An appendage from a tree? I don't see any leaves on my bow. No twigs either. We still call it a limb, even if it is made of foam and carbon. We call a 52" bow a longbow if the string doesn't rest on the limb tips. 52" isn't very long is it?

Yes, some people can pick a spot, not consciously see the arrow and shoot very accurately. It is a hard discipline to master. I can't throw an 80 mph curve ball but I know it can be done by those who work at it and are gifted enough.

There is something valuable to be learned from all the successful methods of shooting a bow. I've recently discovered how much my form improves when I shoot an olympic recurve with a sight. The lighter weight and sight pin take my focus off the target and help me better focus on my form. Bottom line is Instinctive shooting is a very good and successful shooting method even though it may not work for everyone. It has been around long enough that the name isn't going to change any time soon.

[TradArcher]

My coach..and a very talented former Olympic coach described the difference between "Instinctive and non Instinctive" quite suscinctly...."One doesn't use periferals, the other does." That pretty much "gets it" for me.

Tom