Analytical types...

[Martin Farrent]

In archery discussions as elsewhere, different personality (stereo-) types are often cited as explanations for just about everything.

In particular, we are commonly confronted with the notion of "analytical" versus "intuitive" people.

My personal take on such theories is that BS is best left in the popular magazines that thrive on it. But since that's a little too crude for the philosophical forum, I'll elaborate. ;)

I'm not sure that the so-called analytical, rational type is necessarily any less emotional/intuitive than anyone else. The difference, I think, is simply a willingness and inclination to dissect things - including intuition. Whether or not that willingness indicates a certain 'type' of personality is a separate issue. But I'd venture that people are trained or provoked, rather than born to analyse.

Personally, I see a great and obvious advantage in subjecting problems to analysis - but I see an equal advantage in a rational study of things we already manage passably by intuition. If I can understand an issue via reason (and I'm thinking of archery now) despite already handling it well intuitively, I can fine-tune my technique accordingly. Rather than only analysing acute problems as they occur, which is forced behaviour and therefore widespread, I can also examine other elements of my performance - and discover the rational principles actually at work. Thus, I can detect room for improvement where I might not have expected it.

One respective field is aiming (though I don't mean to start an aiming thread). When we begin to understand the physics behind our aiming routines, our attempts to polish our performance need not remain restricted to the range. There's sometimes as much to be learnt and figured out by playing around with the ballistic calculator at bowjackson.com. Simply acknowledging the role of arrow speed in aiming is helpful, but not very concrete - quantifying it for practical purposes or via example calculations is more useful by far. For instance, I wonder how many people confuse aiming and form problems because they avoid the nitty-gritty of trajectory and optics. Do your gaps or error margins make physical sense, or might they be symptoms of form inconsistency - or of form discrepancies between long-range and shorter shots? Probing the topic scientifically is a short cut to an answer.

My own experience in various spheres of life is that things I've done 'well enough intuitively' almost invariably benefited from increased awareness and analysis. I was also more able to repeat them on occasions when intuition let me down.

Best,

Martin

[Seagull]

I too am an "intuitive" rather "analytical". I appreciate my analytical friends even when I get frustrated with their unwillingness to accept my intuitive solutions.

I will have to acknowledge that many times my knowing the problem has lead me to analytical approaches to find a solution. Of course, I have my examples of intuitive answers being rejected only to be grugingly accepted. Just because my analytical friends tooks days to prove me right, doesn't disqualify their approach.

I have wondered if our arguements are more from the lack of appreciation of our different intelligences than anything else. I have very good spatial sense. I use it to compensate for a wide range of ineptitudes. I just wish it would help with writing and spelling.

:2cents:

[Papabull]

I believe a highly effective intuitive process is often the result of knowledge attained through the cumulative result of analytical thinking. Intuitive and analytical approaches have a synergistic effect. One can intuitively conclude that XYZ would work and then exercise a an analytical approach to find out (a) if it does, (b) why it does. Why bother when you intuitively know it should work? Because analyzing how and why it works allows you to understand the operative principles involved that can help you decide if it's best for you and/or how to optimize it.

Intutition tells me that a smaller diameter broadhead will penetrate more deeply and that's good, right? Well, upon closer analysis, we see that smaller diameter broadheads penetrate more deeply because they don't cut as much (naturally). Where analysis comes in is in determining just how much we want to trade off between penetration and cutting diameter.

Intuition can point you in the right direction. Analysis can confirm your intuition and allow you to maximize your understanding and, consequentially, your potential. They work best together.

:2cents:

[Pinelander]

I think analitical tendacies are more of a borne trait than they are learned or provoked. But I know what you mean Martin. Sometimes the analytical quadrant doesn't come to life in some folks until they are pushed into it by either seeing the necessity to figure out a solution, or someone goads them into it by questioning their initial reasoning.

hmmmm.... Analysis to confirm intuition, would that be considered a validation process?

[Martin Farrent]

When I was nine, I started learning the violin.

My first teacher was very easy-going, and I was able to discover and develop many aspects intuitively with little interference.

In some cases, my intuition was spot on. In other cases, the swift results were deceptive - the territory required re-conquering more methodically later on. And in several instances, my self-made solutions were counter-productive... erecting barriers for other things I did not yet know about.

People often confuse an intuitive approach with talent, because it can lead to early semi-proficiency. But 'talent' is eventually measured against a more demanding yardstick, and the early promise of intuition may soon look rather mediocre. When I was playing my violin daily (for over 12 years), my refusal to abandon the intuitive style I had adopted probably prevented me from becoming a professional musician.

Intuition is only one part of the 'talent recipe'. Method, though less glamourous, is another. Discovering the correct dose of each may be the most important ingredient.

Best,

Martin

[Bill Carlsen]

When I was in education, before I retired, we had an interesting workshop on learning/thinking styles. Basicsally there are four "poles" or type of thinking that most of us do and most of us genereally fall into a combination of two of them. There are abstract thinkers, concrete thinkers, random thinkers and sequential thinkers. I guess what I am trying to get at is that we all operate along two axis. One axis has abtract thinking on one end and concrete thinking (its polar opposite) on the other. Intersecting this axis is another that has sequential thinkers on one end and radom thinkers on the opposing pole. None of us are all of one but a combination of them all but we all have our predominant characteristics. Abstract thinkers are the philosophers, poets and tend to be unconventional. Concrete thinkers tend to be good with their hands and keeping the physical world intact. One of them can't see the forest for the trees...the other does. Random thinkers are always out of the box and seem disorganized and tend to be creative in their thinking. Sequential thinkers are analytical, can be boring and are concerned with details and being organized. These differences are what make discussions on these forums fun as we all bring in our perspective which is great unless you have a closed mind. :2cents:

[DAS]

The more analysis I perform, the better my intuition.

David

[Jeff Durnell]

Those with accurate intuition are less anal.

:)

[Papabull]

One never knows if one's intutition was right without analysis. Anal-ysis vs. ass-umption. What's in a name? :D

[Pinelander]

Intuition is a "feeling", that is why it goes with tradtional archery like ice cream goes with apple pie. But since I don't like apple pie as much as peach, I must not have that special feeling. Being analytical about things must be quite an annoyance to those that are intuitive-minded. Kind of like.... "I don't need no stinkin' instructions. The dang thing just works, even though I don't know how it works." So, the ignorance of how something works and/or how to make something work better, stays suppressed within one's intuitiveness for no other reason than "it just feels good".

[Martin Farrent]

So, the ignorance of how something works and/or how to make something work better, stays suppressed within one's intuitiveness for no other reason than "it just feels good".

Agreed, Piney.

Additionally, I think people are very wary of thought processes that might lead to sacrifice - by lowering one's scores temporarily in order to achieve a new level of skill in the longer term.

Questioning intuition and its fruits commonly leads to adjustments that take time and start out disappointingly.

I had taught myself a pretty good semi-dead (or semi-dynamic) release before I started working on this B.E.S.T. stuff. It was rather consistent most of the time, but occasionally let me down dramatically and also devoured fps. I abandoned it due to rational insight, but took weeks to reach my old score levels - especially at shorter ranges. Until the basic changes were rudimentarily ingrained, you could sometimes sense their promise, but not their reward.

This is a process we accept time and time again - sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks. The fun factor is rather minimal during those phases, except for the occasional shot that is better than any we could have executed before. It's all very anti-intuitive and concerned with breaking old habits.

Which is something commonly overlooked: following native intuition is a habit-forming exercise in an activity often demanding anti-intuitive solutions, and thus frequently a bad idea. Following educated intuition is another thing entirely, but presupposes the education. It also leads to habits, but they are formed very deliberately.

For example: back power is not an idea that comes naturally. Our instinct when first confronted with a bow is either to draw with the arm or to distribute the load as much as possible. Our instinct isn't very useful in this respect. Unless we figure out the concept of back tension - or get some coaching - we hit a wall. Raw intuition will not usually provide a solution.

Aiming the arrow above or below the spot is another anti-instinctive necessity. But in this case, even unguided intuition will soon hit on rudimentary meaures. It's a good example of education setting in. The question here, of course, is whether you acknowledge the boons of education and seek more of it.

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

You know.... something I find completely counterintuitive is that there are books about how to be more intuititive..... that seems like a very analytical approach toward being more intutitive, doesn't it?

http://www.conari.com/estore/images/womensintuition.jpg

:lol:

[Martin Farrent]

Yeah Robert, I get a kick out of books like that, too.

Apparently, we're all so screwed up that we need to learn natural things from books. Except that when we were doing everything naturally, we seem to have been in a hurry to get civilised and screwed up. So perhaps it's natural to want to be too screwed up to be natural anymore. In which case our native intuition points in the direction of messing up our own minds...

Mind you, some very clever people use intuition a lot - Stephen Hawkings comes to mind. They use it for impetus, then evaluate its promptings. And they use the kind of intuition that is refined by experience and continuous analysis. I don't think they apply the black-box style of 'intuition' that makes women better bosses or quiet people gentler lovers or cat aficionados better empathisers. Actually, the only people who use that kind of intuition fruitfully are second-class writers, who turn it into piles of cash. Have you ever wondered how good such hacks would be at authoring books on serious psychology? The kind that manages without putting people in three boxes and attaching labels to them?

We've got plenty of archery authors who do a pathetic job of describing the physical game - and very few Frangellis and Lees, prepared to explore the real nitty-gritty. It appears that the mental side of sport invites even more BS. The best way to sell ideas is to tell people there are two types of person and that they belong to the type they prefer. Of course, that goes hand-in-hand with certain gifts, so they are actually doing everything right for their particular individuality (nice word for something that comes in two sizes), but should be more aware of it and repeat it more often, unless they feel like a rest, which is okay too...

Best,

Martin

[stantond]

The how and why are two parts of everything in life. How things work is generally very apparent because you get to see the result. Why something happened requires intuitive understanding or analytical explanation. Being an analytical type, the latter is more comfortable to me. But, that doesn't mean intuition is absent.

Generally, intutition comes from experience, generalizations, comparing similar situations in a subconcious or 'gut feeling'. Analytical evaluation can have all those plus some organizing tools and even a bit of math. Intuition can explain most anything where analysis is limited by ones percieved ablities.

In archery, analyzing ones equipment, form, follow through, etc can be very helpful. However, its the intuitive thoughts that fires the arrow. Some describe archery as a mental meditiation with ones self. Certainly, that is more intuitive but one may also add some analysis.

Generally, the intuitive approach is quick and simple. The analytical approach takes more time and effort. Often the two are in conflict, not due to the result, but because of the individuals bias in the approach.

An archer who is completely intuitive can be very good. The analytical type who learns every muscle and bone name, the optimal bone structure, release, and best tuning technique processes doesn't need any of that during their six second shot. Often, the analytical archer who is constantly tinkering to optimize something is at a disadvantage because they worry too much their equipment, form, etc. The focus, concentration, and letting their subconcious (intuition) take over can be a challenge for the analytical type.


:2cents:

Stan

[Martin Farrent]

Stan,

I think you are mistaken in regarding intuition and analysis as conflicting tools. Letting them play their parts in their respective contexts is the ticket.

The fact that a person can analyse an issue does not disqualify that same person from dealing with it intuitively. There is a time and a place to query intuition. The shooting range during a competition is possibly not the best venue for it. The shooting range during practice is a better choice. The comfort of one's favourite arm chair after shooting is also an excellent place for rational analysis. Books and websites are very helpful, too.

The question whether one's intuition is necessarily doing the best possible job is very valid. It just needs to be asked in the right place. And it needs to reach the correct conclusions. And when both those conditions are met, there's still the challenge of implementing any insights. You rightly warn that analysis can lead to destructive fussiness - but analysis itself is not really the cuplrit. Analysis that has not reached a conclusion and/or not implemented it thoroughly is usually the source of such insecurity. The key concept here is that of thorough implementation.

Once we've calculated that some routine leaves room for improvement, we must to an extent break a habit and rebuild it. That can only be done the hard way, by ingraining the new motions we've cooked up. Otherwise, the analytical archer would be plagued by dozens of bright ideas he regularly failed to exploit - thus in a perpetual state of confusion and disappointment (and yes, probably worse off than a shooter who gave his performance no thought at all).

You are right: sometimes the analytical mind needs to be switched off, and some of us find that harder than others. It's something one can learn, though.

But the fact that competition, for example, often calls for suppression of the analytical mode does not mean that archery on the whole is an activity best left to intuition. Timewise especially, competitive or hunting situations are just one very small part of the game.

Best,

Martin

[jdupre']

I have a friend that makes darn good Hill style longbows. He has a good intuition on WHAT works, but he does not necessarily know WHY it works. Knowing why something works (analytical style) helps a person solve design or shooting problems when confronted with an unfamiliar situation.

In a nutshell, NASA didn't use "Kentucky windage" to put a man on the moon.

[ahshoot]

Intuition is often used when we don't fully understand something. So, people who are "very intuitive" may not be able to fully understand much! Or, alternatively, perhaps they think about things that are at the edge of our collective knowledge (e.g. quantum mechanics) so they have to go with the gut as a guide in uncharted territory. I think people often misuse the phrase "intuitive understanding". This usually means a deep understanding to them. I would say a deep understanding only seems intuitive because you know the subject so well that you think about it so quickly that you don't seem to be analyzing, when in fact you are. What others call an intuitive understanding, to me, means a deep understanding based upon first principles (from the ground up). An intuitive understanding that means "you don't know why you know something but you just do" to me just means you don't really know but are trying to justify your views without really having any support for them.

[ahshoot]

I think we need to define intuition. Here's Webster's defintion.

1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference


2b above should be ignored, I think, because it uses the word in the definition. It seems that intuition, according to this definition, is understanding something so well that you don't SEEM to think about it. I would put forth that you have to be thinking about it. You either are thinking subconsciously or thinking consciously but so quickly that it goes unnoticed. Also, if you have made logical connections before and you remember them, then you can shortcut or jump over them and this may seem like intuition. This is really just operationalizing past thought. This holds for seemingly clear cases of knowing without knowing why, like detecting a lie. I would wager that you picked up on body language, in this case, and analyzed it, without knowing it, and then got a feeling about it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I am very skeptical of anyone that claims to know something or be able to do something and are incapable, when pressed, to give an explanation. When this happens, I think the person only partially understands the subject and is making the rest up.

In the end, all of us have limited knowledge and we have to make decisions and explain things in spite of this. So, I think we all use our knowledge (whether we know we are or are being "intuitive") , which is itself fallible, and then fill in the rest with what we think based upon our educated guesses. The best we can hope for is honesty about our level of certainty in what we are saying.

Other reactions, feelings, or thoughts that we have (without "thinking about it) may be hardwired into us as instinct (either by natural selection or God, it doesn't matter for this discussion). Or they may be transmitted culturally, so that we respond in a way based upon learning, without having thought about the reasons why ourselves. I'm not sure if this qualifies as intuition either. There is still neural processes going on. The main difference, I think, is that in rational thought, we are aware of these processes as they are unfolding.

[seany916]

I am the analytical type. After careful analysis, I determined that I am lacking in "intuitiveness" and am currently working on increasing my use of intuition and decreasing my dependency on analysis.

After a period of time I will conduct another careful analysis to determine the results of my work.

Instinctive archery helps greatly.

[Larry Hatfield]

heres a pretty fair description of the differences between the two----

Analytical thinking is powerful. It is focused, sharp, linear, deals with one thing at a time, contains time, is deconstructive, contains no perspective, is subject to disorientation, is brain centered, and tends to the abstract. Analytical thinking is efficient in the following conditions – sufficient time, relatively static conditions, a clear differentiation between the observer and the observed. It is best suited for dealing with complexities, and works best where there are established criteria for the analysis (for example, rules of law). It is necessary when an explanation is required, seeks the best option, and can be taught in the classroom to beginners.

Intuitive thinking has contrasting qualities: it is unfocused, nonlinear, contains "no time," sees many things at once, views the big picture, contains perspective, is heart centered, oriented in space and time, and tends to the real or concrete. Intuition comes into its own where analytical thinking is inadequate: under time pressure, where conditions are dynamic, where the differentiation between observer and observed is unclear. It works best where the observer has experience in the particular situation, is difficult to teach in the classroom, eschews seeking the ‘best’ option in favor of the ‘workable,’ and is prepared to act on feelings or hunches where explanations are either not required or there is no time for them. Intuition is experience translated by expertise to produce rapid action.

Intuition is limited where the task is complex and uncertain, where the observer lacks experience, or the observation is distorted by biases or fixed ideas. Its weakness is a tendency to produce a fixed attitude or mindset that ignores new data; that is why the analytical thinking of the Enlightenment was so revolutionary. Intuition is ineffective for predicting the stock market, or for discovering that the heart is a pump, or for dissecting a legal problem.

[Dave Holquist]

I tend to gap shoot for the most part, so does that makes me intuitively analytical or instinctively analytical? :confused: :D

[seany916]

ooda

[steve morley]

My 3D distance estimation is "intuitive" rather "analytical but I do like to back it up during practice sessions by checking the distance, 85% of the time I'm pretty much within 1 to 3 yards (talking about IFAA 3D out to 60 yards), in competition on shots around 40-45 yards I tend to double check my intuition and count out the yardage, G2 & G3 3D's overlap around that distance and can look simular making it very hard to rely just on intuition.

My form training is very analytical, when I change anything with my shooting form I often keep regular check of scores between old/new method as it's very important for me to prove to myself that a new form method is actually better and not just imagined.

[Dartwick]

I'm not sure that the so-called analytical, rational type is necessarily any less emotional/intuitive than anyone else. The difference, I think, is simply a willingness and inclination to dissect things - including intuition. Whether or not that willingness indicates a certain 'type' of personality is a separate issue. But I'd venture that people are trained or provoked, rather than born to analyse.



I strongly disagree - although Im not sure the word "emotion" fits the dichotomy.

Ill give the anecdotal example of my younger bother and myself. In pretty much any intuitive physical activity we ever tried he could out perform me with more grace and accuracy(throwing balls, riding sport bikes shooting clay pigions etc).
I think too much while I do stuff.
It is exceedingly hard not for me to not think about the details of what I am doing and essentially double check myself as I proceed. What he can do wonderfully on the first or second try I must do 10s or even 100s of times first before I do its as nicely as him and even then he ussually smoother.

On the other hand my nature lets more quickly realize the details of how any given system operates much faster he ever does. Its not that I am smarter its that Im always looking at the details while he isnt.

[Desert Archer]

I'm with you Dartwick. I've never been any good at the usual sports involving some kind of ball. I am convinced this is why I have so much trouble (impossibility) shooting instinctive...what ever that is.

The first thing I ever found that I seemed to have any aptitude for was shooting a handgun. Even in that world there is an on going argument over aimed vs un-aimed (instinctive) fire for self defense. I was one of the ones who always used the sights, even going as fast as I could I looked for what was called a "flash sight picture".

Interestingly, taking the analytical approach made me a very good instructor. My last 6 years in LE I was the chief firearms instructor for my department (400 armed personnel).

I been giving the "instinctive" thing another try since buying a longbow. As before, my big problem is, when I make a good shot I can't repeat for more than a shot or two because I don't know why I hit. I don't know what I did that makes one shot go in the middle then the next one misses.

Even in asking that question of myself, I am trying to analyze what I'm doing and what's going on. (LOL)

Dave

[longbowguy]

Hey Dave. Have you got a judo point? It is really good longbow practice to stump shoot. Draw, shoot, follow-through almost in one motion. Cactus has stumps, right? Mind the snakes.- lbg

[Desert Archer]

LOL - Steve, out here it would be more like rock shooting. A trip up to the high country would yield some stumps but it's friggin' cold up there. (smile)

I remain a work in progress,
Dave

[TradArcher]

I've seen a couple archers who claim they were "purely" instinctive shooters (a concept I really don't accept.) but it was never much beyond 25yds. I never really cared enough to get into an "instinctive argument" as I really could care less about the subject matter... Only "hitting" counts, however that's accomplished IF it occurs with consistently, that's all that matters.

I kind o subscribe to something Byron Fergurson said about being "Instinctive". It's that after ya "get the picture" by gapping (of some sort), it becomes less gap and more the right picture. Shortly after that it just about "instinctive".... LOL

Tom

[raisins]

Intuition is something we all made up to explain what we don't know about how the human brain works.