SMEs and their misuse by internuts in trying to win arguments

Before we start, SME = Subject Matter Expert.  If I have to explain what a Subject Matter Expert is, this post probably isn’t for you.  With that out of the way...

Go to any online forum, it doesn’t even have to be gun related, and read up on any topic that appears to have one or more popular camps.  Two opposing camps would be best.  Once you’ve done that, go ahead and register and post a new thread taking either side.  Which side doesn’t really matter.  Go on, I’ll wait.

Once the thread has germinated for a bit and you’ve gotten past the “use the search newb” replies, how long do you think it will take before some internut pipes up with “so-and-so SME has an opinion opposite to yours, so you are obviously an idiot and I am obviously a rocket surgeon because I happen to agree with said SME”?  and how long after that before their rival pipes up with “oh yeah? well so-and-so SME #2 says the original poster was right, and I agree with both of them, so clearly you are a complete idiot!”  and on from there until some moderator has had enough and locks the thread (but not before getting their own $0.02 in, typically joined by some snarky attempt at sarcasm).

Why do we do this?

I’m sure someone will retort with “because we rely on the the SMEs with more/better experience than our own to guide us”.  From the Widipedia link above:

In general, the term is used when developing materials (a book, an examination, a manual, etc.) about a topic, and expertise on the topic is needed by the personnel developing the material.

One could make the argument that we could substitute “opinions” for “materials” when internalizing or doing research for our own personal use.  But that’s not really what happens and we all know it.  What happens instead is something like this:

1. Buy item
2. Someone points out potential shortcomings of said item
3. Look for someone, anyone, respected that likes my item
4. Point out #3 to whoever pointed out #2
5. Ignore everything else that respected person (SME?) says about anything we don’t agree with

So, then, how do we arrive at what we do and don’t do that any given SME does or says?  If SME#1 likes Aimpoints, 1911s, and Eagle load bearing equipment, but SME#2 likes Eotechs, Glocks, and First Spear, and an individual likes Aimpoints, Glocks, and Blue Force gear, how to they rationalize all of that in their heads?  How can one simply pick and choose where to follow blindly along and where not to?  How can they quote SME#1 in a thread about pistols and SME#2 in a thread about optics?  If the SME du jour is infallible, why don’t you do everything they do?

Obviously, some people DO.  There are threads all over the place about what boots, beard, watches, etc. any given SME is using in some picture in some magazine somewhere.  This, of course, is why companies are so hot to send freebies of one thing or another to said SME in the hopes that someone somewhere will see it in a picture and mistakenly assume that the SME actually likes it (or bought it with their own money), and rushes out to buy one of their own.  In fact, hey hope this happens over, and over, and over again.  At least enough to offset the free one they sent out.

If two, equally respected, SMEs disagree on a thing, how can they both be right?  and if one is wrong, how can we trust anything else that they say?  Even if we say it’s not a matter of right or wrong but a matter of opinion, how do you pick and choose which opinions you agree with an which you don’t?  The only logical answer is that it’s happenstance, and if that’s the case then why do you keep going around quoting them?

And here’s the real kicker... what if they are both wrong?  Or at least wrong for you and your situation?  if two SMEs say that the XYZ is the best ABC for combat, but you’re a 3-gun shooter, or benchrest shooter, or plinker, or simply a guy defending his home, how applicable is that opinion to your own situation?  Should you maybe do your best to get some training and trigger time with the XYZ, and maybe several other examples and types of ABC, in your application so that you can make up your own damn mind?  And if you haven’t, might-ant you ought keep your trap shut about which one is “best”?  Chances are pretty damn good that you have zero method by which to quantify your claim of “best”, so why not just keep that to yourself?  Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn’t mean you should subject everyone else to it, or that all opinions are equal (apologies to mommies and kindergarten teachers everywhere).

Where we ought to be using the opinions of SMEs is to understand WHY.  It’s not enough to simply know that SME#1 likes the Eotech and SME#2 likes the Aimpoint.  Those facts, in and of themselves, are useless.  You need to understand WHY they like what they like, and for what application.  Without that, their opinions are about as useless as yours.  What you should be doing is understanding their frame of reference, and their criteria for their opinion, and their level of experience with other makes and models of similar items, and figuring out how all of that applies to YOU and your situation.  Much like the Chart and the Explanation of Features.  The whole point of the E of F is to let people understand WHY the criteria listed is important and WHY the military specification calls for what it does so that you can figure out how those criteria apply to you and your situation.

This extends to actual shooting concepts as well.  What an SME does, or did, in combat may or may not be applicable to your situation.  We hear all the time “well this is how the *teams* do it”. What team?  My team friggin’ sucks, it’s my scrawny ass and a 20 lbs. dog.  I want to re-pick teams!  It should be quite obvious that in many cases what a “team” does has little applicability to what you are doing on your own, or with a suburban family.  Some of what some *individuatls* on the teams do may be applicable, but charging down a hallway because you know you’re not only covered in body armor but that you also have 4 similarly protected and armed buddies with you may not quite carryover to the homeowner in his boxer shorts with a wife and kid cowering in the tub 10 yards behind them and behind a locked door.

Similar to the survivor of the single gunfight.  I once met a guy in a class that had survived a gunfight because the badguy’s bullet hit his watch on the way to his head.  Said guy shot so bad that the instructor asked him “what kind of choke do you have in that thing?” after observing his groups at 25 yards with the carbine.  That doesn’t mean:
A) that I want to take a class from that guy
or
B) that I want to buy the same brand of watch because obviously it is not only what gunfighters wear but is also bullet-proof.

Let me say that I have been guilty of ALL of the above.  I’m sure it wouldn’t take much to dig up a post or two of mine engaging in all of this foolishness.  But it doesn’t mean it’s right.

Engage your brain.

Make up your own mind.

Don’t simply use opinions and quotes from others because you lack the ability to back your own opinion with fact or even rational argument.

Strive to become your own SME about yourself, your situation, your needs, and what works for you.

Trigger "Slap"

This began as a post on a forum, and then as a facebook note on my TYV fan page, but I wanted to port it over to the blog for easier linking.

I've seen quite a bit of discussion of late on trigger control.  Presumaby as more people get interested in training and competition and becoming goal-oriented shooters they discover new things that they may not have heard of before, or given much thought to, especially if their last class was an intro class and they have been shooting a lot since then but not received higher-level training especially with very high level shooters.  What many people call trigger "slap" I refer to as the "aggressive reset".

To properly utilize the aggressive reset you're going to have three kinds of trigger press and three kinds of sight picture, and they are paired up.  Some even have four. 

Trigger Press-

• Trigger press A is the closest to a "slap" and is probably why people that don't know what they are talking about call it that.  It is pulling straight through the entire stroke of the trigger, the way you would with a revolver, very quickly.  One consistent pull, all the way through
• Trigger press B is a little slower, with a very slight hitch in the pull-through as you take out the slack as you align the sights.  Pull through the takeup, feel the notch, and pull through the break.
• Trigger press C is the slowest and is similar to B except that you might get a longer hold after takeup and before the break as you let your sights settle on, or align with, the target.

In all cases on recoil you let the finger leave the trigger face, or at the very least come all the way forward.

Sight Picture-

• Sight picture 1 is a "flash" sight picture.  It is NOT "point shooting" but is using the whole rear of the slide as an index or aiming point.  Your focus can actually remain on the target.
• Sight picture 2 is a front sight "flash" where you do similar but with the front sight post.  Your focus an be between the target and the front sight so long as you can make out the front sight sufficiently to ensure that it is on the target.
• Sight picture 3 is a hard front sight focus, aligned in the rear sight, with the top of the sights aligned across the top and either "pumpkin on a post" or slicing the center of the bullseye depending on how you shoot, your preference, and how your sights are zeroed.

In no cases are you simply looking at the target and totally ignoring your gun in any way with no reference point whatsoever.

So, trigger press A goes with sight picture 1, trigger press B goes with sight picture 2, and trigger press C goes with sight picture 3.  How do you know which to do when?    Target size.  All that happens when targets are further away is that they appear smaller, so distance is irrelevant.  Larger targets get A1, the very smallest targets get C3, and the vast majority of targets get the B2.  If you're shooting an el-pres on fullsize steel, everything will get an A1, if you're shooting a target that has 50% of the A-zone covered with hard cover, or if you're forced to go for a head shot, or shooting a plate rack at 25 yards, you'll use C3.  In all of these the principals of sight alignment and trigger-control still apply.  If you're not pulling the trigger straight to the rear you're still screwed.  If your index sight picture includes a pistol that's turned in your hand 5* you're also likely to be screwed.  Just because you don't have a hard focus on the sights doesn't mean you can get hits if they aren't aligned, and just because they are aligned doesn't mean you have to be looking at them.

All of this said, you can see that things can become very complex.  for a high level ip-sic shooter or a very competent "tactical shooter" this all happens with unconscious competence.  For a new shooter starting out I think you should still learn the traditional hard front sight focus at all times and ease to reset.  Why?  Because it works all the time.  You're not going to get confused as to where the target is, what it's doing, which trigger press goes with which sight picture, etc.  That is too much to process when you're still worried about getting the gun out of the holster, hitting the magwell with a reload, etc.  When you have reached a level of unconscious competence with your manipulations and are getting good hits with a consistent hard sight focus and ease-to-reset trigger control you can move on to the aggressive reset and the three-stage trigger-press/sight-picture.

When you first make the transition to the three-stage method you are likely to see a DECREASE in your scores/accuracy.  This is because as you think about what you are doing (conscious incompetnce through conscious competence) you will make the wrong choice frequently.  You may also struggle with the new trigger stroke(s) and wind up jerking the trigger and imparting movement on the gun.  However, as you practice these things you will find it is a case of taking one step back to take ten steps forward.

Finally, there is an agreement you have to enter into with yourself to make this work and that is an understanding of "what is the target?"  If I hang an IDPA target in front of you, what is the target?  What if I change it to an ip-sic tombstone?  What if I make both of those out of steel?  Or a plate rack?  Or a B-8 bullseye? Or a man with a knife?  Or a man with a knife holding said knife to your child's throat?  The target is what you need it to be, based on what you are doing and the situation at hand.  If you are shooting a USPSA stage where points are more important than time then the target may be the A-zone.  Make time a bigger factor and you may find the C-zone is the target.  Shooting at a full-size IDPA steel target the target is the entire area allthe way out to the -3 and including the head.  If you prefer, think of it as the "acceptable hit zone".  To approach the other end of the spectrum with the man with the knife at your child's throat the target, or acceptable hit zone, is the eye socket of that man.  Regardless of the size of the target, however, you are picking out a single point, the size of a pin head, on the target, where you want the hits to go.  THAT is your true target, all the time, regardless of sight picture and trigger press used, but around that you have your acceptable hit zone, and which combination of trigger press and sight picture you choose is going to be based on that acceptable hit zone.

Failure

Continuing our series of defining words for people that don't seem to now what they mean...

Again, we begin at the beginning with dictionary.com...

fail·ure

   [feyl-yer]  Show IPA

noun

1.

an act or instance of failing  or proving unsuccessful; lack ofsuccess: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.

2.

nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: afailure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.

3.

a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency: the failureof crops.

4.

deterioration or decay, especially of vigor, strength, etc.:The failure of her health made retirement necessary.

5.

a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.

Clearly, in this case, we are going to have to dig deeper

fail

   [feyl]  Show IPA

verb (used without object)

1.

to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: The experiment failed because of poor planning.

2.

to receive less than the passing grade or mark in anexamination, class, or course of study: He failed in history.

3.

to be or become deficient or lacking; be insufficient orabsent; fall short: Our supplies failed.

4.

to dwindle, pass, or die away: The flowers failed for lack ofrain.

5.

to lose strength or vigor; become weak: His health failed after the operation.

verb (used with object)

9.

to be unsuccessful in the performance or completion of: He failed to do his duty.

10.

(of some expected or usual resource) to prove of no use orhelp to: His friends failed him. Words failed her.

11.

to receive less than a passing grade or mark in: He failedhistory.

12.

to declare (a person) unsuccessful in a test, course ofstudy, etc.; give less than a passing grade to: The professorfailed him in history.

noun

13.

Stock Exchange .

a.

a stockbroker's inability to deliver or receive securitywithin the required time after sale or purchase.

b.

such an undelivered security.

14.

Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.

Idiom

15.

without fail, with certainty; positively: I will visit youtomorrow without fail.

Origin: 
1175–1225; Middle English failen  < Anglo-French, Old French faillir < Vulgar Latin *fallīre,  for Latin fallere  to disappoint, deceive

Related forms

un·failed, adjective

So, then, "failure" is "an act or instance of falling short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved.  Or, an act or instance of being unsuccessful in the performance or completion of something.  How do we know, then, if we fail if we do not set a clear goal?  And, in the absence of a stated goal on the part of an actor, how can we define whether or not they failed?  A street full of apples may be seen from an outside observer as a failure, especially since they are viewing the world through their own narrow lens within which it is imperative that apples stay in the cart, but if the actor's goal from the beginning was to overturn the apple cart, then that same street full of apples is indicative of a success!  As another example, one might say that rejection by the first girl at the bar is a failure, but if the guy's goal for the night was to talk to 25 women he's just getting started.

Most people will never know true failure.  Why?  Because they never set goals.  Or if they do, the goals they set are so weak that they are virtually guaranteed success.  If your goal is to get to work on time in the morning and you leave a full 10 minutes earlier than when you need to, that's not a success, that's just sad.  Others simply focus their efforts and time where they are naturally talented or skilled.  The guy with the ridiculously strong leg becomes a kicker.  The kid that can do long division in his head becomes a math wizz.  These are not successes, because they did not set goals, they simply did what came naturally.  Do we call a dog a success for having eaten and then shit?

Anywhere you go you will hear about how goals need to be specific, achievable, measurable, and time-bound.  Yup.  But you know what else they need to be?  Challenging!  If the goals are not challenging they are pointless.  If you never fail to meet a goal in your time given, you're doing it wrong.  and by "it" I mean "setting the goals too low to begin with".  If this shit was easy, everyone would do it.  What is the point of setting a goal you know you can meet?  This isn't about goals, it's about failure.  But it's interesting to note that so many of these concepts rely on having a baseline and knowing your skillset.

How does this relate to shooting?

In Kyle Lamb's VTAC Carbine 1.5 class recently he and Dan both talked about training to exceed your skillset.  You want to fail.  If you're shooting the 1-5 drill and you never get a shot outside the -0, how do you know if you're really operating at your maximum skillset?  If you're shooting a Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) standard and you never miss, how do you know what your true personal effective range is? (which is something I'll try to come back and address in a later blog post).  Pat McNamara, similarly, talked about "failing quickly".  Push yourself past your previous limits, fail, and get over it and get back to it.  Ken Hackathorn advised to paste your bad hits first, not just to hide them from your buddies but so that you can focus on what you're doing right.  All of these are ways to deal with failure.  Bruce Wayne's father asked him "why do we fall down?", and the answer is "so that we can learn to pick ourselves back up again."  We learn more from pushing ourselves to the point of failure than we ever will operating in that safe zone of known performance.  But living in that safe zone is fucking lame.

Better

Let’s talk about “better”.  We hear it all the time, and it’s one of those little words that people tend to throw around but never really seem to define, or quantify.  Quick disclaimer here: I am a firm believer in the concept that an unexamined life is not worth living.  If you’re not, and you’re one of those guys that obsesses over his lawn and pool, and what tie to wear today, and whether or not the wife will make your favorite meal for dinner, all to avoid asking any sort of questions that might lead to uncomfortable answers, this post probably isn’t for you.  You, the Cognitively Dissonent, are what the firearms industry lives off of, so by all means carry on.

Better.  Let’s define it.  Let’s start at the beginning with dictionary.com

bet·ter

1    [bet-er]  Show IPA
adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1. of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
2. morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability,acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.
4. larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime.
5. improved in health; healthier than before.

adverb, compar. of well with best as superl.
7. in a more appropriate or acceptable way or manner: to behave better.
8. to a greater degree; more completely or thoroughly: He knows the way better than we do. I probably know him better than anyone else.
9. more: I walked better than a mile to town.

verb (used with object)
10. to increase the good  qualities of; make better;  improve: to better the lot of the suburban commuter.
11. to improve upon; surpass; exceed: We have bettered last year's production record.
12. Cards . to raise (a previous bid).

noun
13. that which has greater excellence or is preferable or wiser:the better of two choices.
14. Usually, betters. those superior to one in wisdom, wealth,etc.

Idioms
15. better off,

a. in better circumstances.

b. more fortunate; happier: Because of his asthma, he would be better off in a different climate.

16. better oneself, to improve one's social standing, financial position, or education: He is going to night school because he wants to better himself.
17. for the better, in a way that is an improvement: His health changed for the better.
18. get / have the better of,

a. to get an advantage over.

b. to prevail against.

19. go (someone) one better, to exceed the effort of; be superior to: The neighbors went us one better by buying two new cars.

Origin:
before 900; Middle English bettre, Old English bet(t )( e ) ra;  cognate with Old High German bezziro  ( German besser ), Dutch beter, Old Norse betr, Gothic batiza,  equivalent to bat-  (cognate with Old High German baz  (adv.) better; akin to boot2 ) + -iza  comparative suffix; suggested relation to Sanskrit bhadrá-  “fortunate” is doubtful. See best

Related forms
un·bet·tered, adjective

Synonyms
10.  amend; advance, promote; reform, correct, rectify. See improve.


All of that and we come down to “see improve”.  I like that, improve.  In order to show improvement you have to have two data points: the old and the new.  Without those data points, how do you measure improvement?

In the construction industry we deal with “better” all the time.  The building code, for those that don’t know or work in the industry, is the minimum, base standard.  Project drawings and specifications cannot go below that standard, but they may go beyond it and improve upon it.  How is that quantified?  It depends on what the part or assembly is, but there is always a way to quantify it.  Either it’s a window that will withstand greater pressure or impact, a material that will last longer in a fire of X-degrees, or a material that last longer to wear and abrasion (yes, they measure that) in high traffic areas... but “better” always has a number associated with it.

“Better” may actually be less.  A child that gets fewer disciplinary citations at school might be said to be “better behaved” than another child who is constantly in the principal’s office.  A gallon of gas that costs $3.85 is said to be a “better price” than a gallon of gas that costs $3.99.  A group of 10 rounds that measures 4” at the furthest point between two holes is considered a “better group” than one that measures 6”.  A time to take those same 10 shots of 6.78 seconds is considered a “better time” than the same ten shots in 8.54 seconds.

No matter what, better is measured. Better is not a personal preference.  Something may be better for your individually, for example a pickup truck is a better vehicle for me than a Corvette, but we can measure that too in terms of my requirements for the vehicle (carry shit) and quantify the amount of shit the Corvette can carry vs. the truck.  Very simple.  “I like blue and not red” is a personal preference.  “I like the Magpul MOE grip better than the A2 is a personal preference” (although I bet with a ruler and 20 minutes we could show why and quantify it).  “I like Coke and not Pepsi” is a personal preference (although, again, that likely is more of a psychological problem than it is an actual taste issue).

So why, in the shooting world, do we throw around terms like “better” when we cannot substantiate that claim?  Why would we suggest things to someone else under the guise of “better” when we can’t even prove to ourselves that it is, or is not, better?

Current research is showing that it is virtually impossible for people to handle facts that they do not want to hear.  It’s called Cognitive Dissonance.  The theory is that it is actually PAINFUL for most humans to remain objective and accept facts that are counter to their own preconceived notions.  Hence why Obama supporters claim to “know” that he was born in the US (how can they possibly “know” this?) and why Birthers will refuse to acknowledge any documentation Obama could produce.  If you put them in time machines and took them back the actual moment of birth, they still wouldn’t believe it.

So clear your mind, and your preconceived notions.

If you want to improve, or be better, at shooting first and foremost you have to be keeping records.  If you’re not then you’re never going to get anywhere.  Even if you only shoot matches, and don’t do anything more than look at the results, you’re still at least doing something.  Most likely you are noting your position relative to a rival, or to the field as a whole.  This month you note “I came in 6th” and 5 months from now you note “I came in 3rd.”   That kind of recordkeeping is pretty ineffective overall but at least it’s something.  What you should be doing, at a minimum and given the same shooting schedule, is keeping track of your points down and penalties as well as your time.  How many As?  How many Ds?  How many -0?  How many -3?

if you’re changing parts on your gun, you want to change them for a reason.  In some cases it may simply be a case of ergonomics such as grips, stocks, and handguards.  Those are personal preference items that relate to your comfort when holding the firearm.  In other cases it may be a weight reduction issue that relates to your long-term comfort when holding the firearm.  But if a part doesn’t make the gun lighter or more comfortable for you to hold or carry, it better improve your time or your accuracy.  And if you’re going to claim it improves your time and/or accuracy, you should be able to quantify that improvement or you shouldn’t make the claim.