PDA

View Full Version : Training & New Input



kenjgood
21st April 2001, 00:11
Just finished a 6-week long tour of several U.S. cities training law-enforcement and military units. The participants from many departments and units represented a fairly large cross-section of experience and skill levels.

Topics included: combatives/defensive tactics (DT), firearms, Force-on-Force drilling and current scenarios, day and night operations.

Observation: The single most significant factor in terms of improvement or the ability to learn new skill sets is a three letter word: EGO.

It is amazing to walk into a classroom setting to face a new group of students and literally feel the ego pressure. If I could invent a meter to measure it, I might be rich…..

Some groups had plenty of ego but could put it aside and drive on, others (estimating 5-15% of any given student population) used it as shield to deflect any constructive criticism of performance deficiencies.

I use a digital, 0 lux video camera and it doesn’t lie….or does it.

I see individuals and teams not communicating, running out of control, getting gunned down for lack of situational awareness, missing targets of opportunity because of uncontrolled fire, engaging no-shoots, target fixated and so on….

When an ego-maniac views the same clip, to him or her it is simply a matter of poor scenario construction, unreliable training equipment, instructor shortfalls and a religious adherence to established SOP’s whether they work on not in the dynamic of combat.

I must not have my frequency altering glasses on to see the matrix….

Is it the blue or the red pill?

Kit LeBlanc
21st April 2001, 01:20
Ken,

Well, thankfully we don't have that problem in martial arts!

Kit LeBlanc

Neil Hawkins
22nd April 2001, 13:19
If you ever find a way of overcoming this problem let me know. I get tired of the "you have to prove yourself to us because we know everything" attitude. I teach MA, CQC and Emergency Management, three areas that are skills based and home to a 'macho' type of personality.

Whenever you try to teach professionals that are currently doing the job, you get resistance. I've found that only time solves the problem, but you can't always afford the time it takes. It seems to be skills training that have this problem, academic style learning doesn't seem to have it, at least not as bad.

Anybody know of a way around this, a different approach to training that negates the 'Ego block'?

Regards

Neil

Kit LeBlanc
22nd April 2001, 16:42
Originally posted by Neil Hawkins
If you ever find a way of overcoming this problem let me know. I get tired of the "you have to prove yourself to us because we know everything" attitude. I teach MA, CQC and Emergency Management, three areas that are skills based and home to a 'macho' type of personality.

Whenever you try to teach professionals that are currently doing the job, you get resistance. I've found that only time solves the problem, but you can't always afford the time it takes. It seems to be skills training that have this problem, academic style learning doesn't seem to have it, at least not as bad.

Anybody know of a way around this, a different approach to training that negates the 'Ego block'?

Regards

Neil

Here's a different take.

Ego certainly in a major stumbling block in in dealing with "pros," some people will just never believe that there is anyone else out there with anything to offer. Then again, there are plenty of trainers in the martial arts and tactics/combatives that don't believe there is anything better than what THEY have to offer, and this may not always be the case.

I see nothing wrong with trainers having to prove themselves. Surefire does that by engaging in force on force simulations with students and SHOW just how good their stuff is, adn catches it on film. Others can simply do it by showing good stuff and MAKING it work against the big aggressive SWAT cop that doesn't play along. There will always be a few naysayers in any class.

But I do think pros have every right to question what they are being taught, as literally their own or others' lives might be on the line. There are plenty of trainers coming out of the woodwork these days, and many do NOT have the qualifications that groups like Surefire do. Some are simply martial arts- guys who just came up with something they thought was cool and want to add "tactical instructor to the stars" to their resume. Some are name-recognized organizations with less than credible standards for their instructor cadre simply so they can offer more classes cheaper classes (quantity over quality).

Ken brings up a different point, the ones who SEE their mistakes on film and STILL refuse to believe it. But having to prove ones' methods is the price one pays (and rightly so) if one wants to play with the pros.

Kit LeBlanc

kenjgood
25th April 2001, 02:26
I snipped out a bit of the video of the evenings festivities:

It was indicative of the type of things that were happening.

Goto: http://surefire.com/2on1.htm

Download the 1 meg Quicktime clip to your desktop.

Walker
25th April 2001, 05:05
Ken, obviously you have ignored correct etiquette and decorum on the battlefield.

A warrior strides to the front and announces his name and title whereupon a worthy opponent accepts his challenge of manly combat.
or
A true martial art master leaps from behind his barricade, launches into a protracted kata mating dance, utters cries resembling a cat in heat and says, “ You killed my father! Now you shall DIEEEEE!”

You, on the other hand, calmly blind the poor fellow and pump a few in his face. My mother always said, “If you can’t kill them nicely, don’t kill them at all.”

The Martial Arts Style Guy
Mr. T. L. Douglass Walker Esq.

Derek McDonald
5th May 2001, 22:12
I would like to offer a different perspective to the subject of ego in training. I have been studying various martial arts for years, and once made my living as a full-time karate instructor. I have also had the opportunity to train in Ken Good’s CQB classes (www.surefire.com) for law enforcement and military. In my professional life I have been a salesman, sales trainer, and student of persuasive communication.

When I taught martial arts (Tang Soo Do) the students ranged from housewives, professionals and children--who had no combative background--to policemen, students of other arts, and "tough guys". Everyone has an ego and mine presents itself constantly. An ego in itself is not necessarily good or bad. Ego can be the catalyst that drives us to take on worthy challenges, and it can be the thing that limits our potential and growth. I believe that all egos are based in one fear or another. Two of the most common types of ego-activating fear—in my opinion—are the fear of domination and the fear of looking bad (or stupid, or not fitting in, or not being accepted, etc.)

The ego is most dangerous when we are either unaware of it, or refuse to acknowledge its existence. Once awareness is realized we can then identify how we are "run" or controlled by our ego.

Before giving sales or teambuilding training to a group of high-energy Type "A" salesmen--who may or may not have more front line experience than me --I first take the time to acknowledge the experience that everyone brings to the table. I then make the point that what I’m teaching only has value if the student agrees to temporarily suspend disbelief, and is willing to try the teaching on like a new pair of shoes (the shoes may be slightly uncomfortable at first, but try them on for the day before deciding).

I then discuss the difference between being "coachable" or "uncoachable" (Using the analogy of an Olympic athlete who takes direction from his coach without question, until he has had sufficient time to test the validity of the coach’s input). I then ask the group if they are willing to be coachable even if--at some time later in the day—they become frustrated or upset. If anyone does not agree to this arrangement they are excused from the class, at which time they either leave or agree to be coachable.

Depending on the group dynamic I may precede the "coaching conversation" with my viewpoint—as stated above—on the nature of ego and the limitations of not taking responsibility for having one. It is important to note that what makes the group receptive to this whole conversation is that I use personal examples of how my own ego has manifested itself in the past.

These conversations and concepts set the stage for the rest of the day, and when a particular student’s ego takes over and they become resistant, they are taken to the side and calmly reminded of their agreement to remain coachable.

This methodology of preparing students for training has been termed "Preframing" by practitioners of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), and is used to some degree by most successful persuaders (assuming you believe that teaching is the selling of ideas and viewpoints). Please note that I am not trying to force my viewpoint on the student, I only want them to open their minds enough to test the potential validity of my information for themselves. While preframing and other techniques of persuasion can be used to manipulate, they can also be used to stimulate "authentic" communication.

When I find myself becoming frustrated with a student I try to remember two things, (1) that my own ego is probably in play, and (2) that the student is dealing with his ego and deserves some sympathy in that regard. My sympathy, however, is only extended to the degree that the student does not interfere with his classmates’ learning. Every once in awhile I have to give a student a time-out.

Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and the Way They Think and Work Together, is a good read on the subject of coaching versus instructing. You can find it at amazon.com.

Respectfully,
Derek McDonald

"It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts".
--John Wooden, UCLA Head Basketball Coach Emeritus

TIM BURTON
6th May 2001, 00:56
In my experience Officers who seem to have an ego problem should be re-assessed by the instructor before making that judgement. In my experience the “Law Enforcement Officer” is a practical person who is always looking for a Quick Remedy to a conflict. So when introduced to a training environment where they find that they will have to work seriously hard to accomplish success they begin to look around for short cuts. The current flavour of the day seems to be pressure point disruption etc. Here the unwitting are exposed to marvellously effective, painful and incapacitating techniques without seeming to realise that it is their own passive capitulation which usually leads to the success of the strike.
Most do not comprehend that the application of most of these techniques in a “live” encounter is nigh on impossible to implement without continual training. It is not until live training scenario’s that they see these techniques do not have the anticipated success rate.
When faced with techniques that are not instant fixes, the officer then has to confront their own fears, what if it does not work first time, will I get hurt, will I freeze, will I let a partner down, can I hack it, and so on.
All of us have these fears and some of us work hard to strengthen our obvious weaknesses in combat. However many officers do not have the time or the inclination to do this and only have the allocated time of the course, whether it be two hours, four hours or a week. When on such a course they are confronted with their own private fears and are forced to reflect on failure, so they search for a way to alleviate those feelings and usually focus in on the instructor.
In many cases the instructor has a wealth of other knowledge learnt from their study of the martial arts. The officer focuses in on these skills and attempts to seek out those that will be outside their duty requirements, for example, sentry silencing and use of the bayonet(just examples). Here the officer can throw themselves whole heartily into practice of this kind as they can subconsciously banish all their fears of failure, with the rational that they will never be called upon to perform these skills for real, so in essence will never fail.
It is a psychological tea break, from the rigors of the real reason they are there and that is to defend themselves on duty. A necessary and often occurrence these days that officers try to shut out of their minds.