Unconscious Competence

[rob_s]

In the October 2009 SWAT magazine, Pat Rogers has an article where he talks about the four levels of the training cycle:
1) Unconscious Incompetence - where the shooter "doesn't know what they don't know"
2) Conscious Incompetence - where the shooter realizes their limitations and begins to work on them
3) Conscious Competence - where the shooter has to think and be mindful of everything they do, but performs competently
4) Unconscious Competence - where the skills are all second-nature

While this is not necessarily new ground to a lot of folks, I think it's a good jumping off point for discussion, and some recent events within our club have brought the above to the forefront in my mind.

What really tripped this for me was our South Florida Defensive Carbine New Shooter Orientation and Qualification (I know, that's a mouthful. Follow the links to find out more). Prior to the event all announcements included the above links, all email inquiries were met with the same links, and at sign in the night of the event copies of the Qual were made available to all shooters. This includes the required equipment, the required magazine loadings, and a complete description of the course(s) of fire. Prior to the actual firing we also covered getting in and out of sitting, kneeling, and prone.

Clearly, no one can claim that they are at Level One by the time they hear the first "fire" command as they have been given ample resources to inform them as to what will be expected of them. "Unconscious Incompetence", if it exists at that point, is due to their own poor mindset and situational awareness and nothing else.

What we found this past Tuesday was that of 36 shooters that arrived, the majority were at best at Level Two. Fumbling of magazines, odd methods of charging the gun, strange ways of getting in and out of sitting, kneeling, and prone, etc. We ran three relays of 12+/- each and I would say that fully 2/3 if not more of the shooters were at Level Two, and even then only because they had used the resources we provided them. If we tested them one week prior they would still have been at Level One, and in terms of the actual methodologies of how to do what they were asked they still were.

Fortunately, our club prides itself on being a "teaching club", and we offer many opportunities to practice, train, and mentor new shooters. Our monthly drills night are an excellent example of this. We offer both handgun drills and carbine drills, as well as a separate area for the truly "I just bought this yesterday" bunch. In this way we are able to move a good number of shooters through the stages and we have seen many progress from Unconscious Incompetence to Unconscious Competence, which is a gratifying thing to see.

What truly boggles the mind is those that appear content to languish at Level Two, or even Level One, despite the resources available to them. They appear to be the shooting equivalent of "fat, dumb and happy" with zero desire to improve or grow, yet are often more than willing to rush up to us on arrival at the range and show off the new proton pack they just bolted to their rifle. I truly do not understand this mindset.

[Business_Casual]

I think the terms are wrong.

If someone is unconscious, they are in need of medical treatment. If someone subconsciously touches their cheek when they are holding four aces, you don't want to bet on that hand.

M_P

[Gutshot John]

I've heard a few instructors mention this progression and more than one thought it was problematic.

In terms of unconscious incompetence this was described as a shooter who thinks they're competent but actually aren't. We've probably all seen shooters who show up for their first match and think they're going to smoke everyone and then finish dead last. They didn't know they sucked until they got around a bunch of people that didn't. For myself I shot "expert" with a pistol while I was in the military so I naturally thought I was competent...until I got "served."

Two had a philosophical problem with "unconscious competence" in that they didn't think one should shoot if one is not thinking about one is doing relevant to safety. Of course it's a waste of time to think "I'm going to pull that trigger a 1/4" to make it break". So certain things become part of muscle memory, but "unconscious" means there is no thought at all. I've heard one instructor talk about preferring "subconscious competence" as a term since it implies that there is still conscious thought occurring.

[rob_s]

I know it's the internet and all but...

"subconscious" or "unconscious" is splitting hairs here. We all know what is meant. Clearly people are not shooting while lying in a coma. Perhaps subconscious is a better choice of words, but hopefully we can move past that and discuss the concepts instead of dissecting the words.

Or, we can do the internut thing and add other possible terms like "un-conscious" or "non-conscious" to the mix. Seems counter-productive to me but...

[RogerinTPA]

In the October 2009 SWAT magazine, Pat Rogers has an article where he talks about the four levels of the training cycle:
1) Unconscious (Ignorant: Lacks Knowledge) Incompetence - where the shooter "doesn't know what they don't know"
2) Conscious (Cognizant or Aware) Incompetence - where the shooter realizes their limitations and begins to work on them
3) Conscious (Cognizant or Aware) Competence - where the shooter has to think and be mindful of everything they do, but performs competently
4) Unconscious (Instinctive) Competence - where the skills are all second-nature

I think the words in blue would be a more accurate description of what Pat is trying to say, but I understand where he's coming from.

[Gutshot John]

I know it's the internet and all but...

"subconscious" or "unconscious" is splitting hairs here. We all know what is meant. Clearly people are not shooting while lying in a coma. Perhaps subconscious is a better choice of words, but hopefully we can move past that and discuss the concepts instead of dissecting the words.

Or, we can do the internut thing and add other possible terms like "un-conscious" or "non-conscious" to the mix. Seems counter-productive to me but...

That's an excellent point and I should have been more clear - I don't think the sub/un-conscious competence is something we should be striving for, but that's just my opinion. Maybe there are a few walk-on-water types that can, but most dedicated shooters will never reach that level.

The "best" shooters I see/know are constantly thinking/evaluating what they're doing. Even when you're "consciously competent" your brain is delegating all kinds of responsibility to your muscle memory so I guess I'd ask where the line gets drawn and how?

Not to mention how when people start to mention "instinctive shooting" all kinds get their hackles up.

[Zhurdan]

The only one I think has a bit of a dangerous definition is the last one.

Unconscious Competence. Why? Because there are people that work factory lines where repetitious actions are the flavor of the day, yet they still end up with fingers snagged, cut, chopped off, broken or otherwise mangled because they put their hand somewhere it wasn't supposed to be even though they've done it mindlessly for years. (wow, run on sentence) Is there something else he talked about that accounts for that? Mental fatigue perhaps? Or is the mundane task simply not "refined" enough to qualify as a skill in this case?

[rob_s]

In the October 2009 SWAT magazine, Pat Rogers has an article where he talks about the four levels of the training cycle:
1) Unconscious (Ignorant: Lacks Knowledge) Incompetence - where the shooter "doesn't know what they don't know"
2) Conscious (Cognizant or Aware) Incompetence - where the shooter realizes their limitations and begins to work on them
3) Conscious (Cognizant or Aware) Competence - where the shooter has to think and be mindful of everything they do, but performs competently
4) Unconscious (Instinctive) Competence - where the skills are all second-nature

I think the words in blue would be a more accurate description of what Pat is trying to say, but I understand where he's coming from.

Maybe that will help stem put this back on track, but it appears that it will not.

Thanks for trying.

[Gutshot John]

Maybe that will help stem put this back on track, but it appears that it will not.

Thanks for trying.

Rob I'm not sure what you're looking for, you seem to be eliminating any avenue of discussion. Did you want people to discuss or were you looking to lecture? I'm content to learn from your experience but you didn't make that clear.

Was there a point you were trying to make that's been ignored?

Maybe that people are lazy when they don't wish to improve their skills which they know are deficient? Ok I'll buy that.

Does that bring it "back on track"? If not making an effort to do so might serve your purpose better than the above statement.

[rob_s]

Rob I'm not sure what you're looking for, you seem to be eliminating any avenue of discussion. Did you want people to discuss or were you looking to lecture? I'm content to learn from your experience but you didn't make that clear.

Was there a point you were trying to make that's been ignored?

Maybe that people are lazy when they don't wish to improve their skills which they know are deficient? Ok I'll buy that.

Does that bring it "back on track"? If not making an effort to do so might better serve your purpose rather than the above statement.

It's the internet, the thread is free to go wherever it may roam. I just think discussion of the semantics used is kind of boring. In internut speak "thread fail" on my part. I tap.