Instinctive shooting - an instinctive shooter's perspective

[Chase N. Nocks]

There are two problems here.
Instinctive is the wrong term.
Not many of us are bio mechanists.
I would have thought that if true "instinctive" shooting is a reality that instinctive shooters could shoot any target static or stationary with any bow at any distance the first day they picked up a bow out of the bag without any coach or adviser telling them anything and without any training.....doesn't happen.

Same skills etc required to drive a car.
From lots of experiences including huge variables our learning transfers from unmastered highly conscious to unconscious highly skilled. In order to maintain the unconscious skill level and mastery you need to keep driving. Somecannotdrive manuals but weare all capable if we practice. If we can drive one type of car wecan drive any car even if it is not set up for us. If we stop regularly driving and reinforcing the learning andleave it for many years with a small amount of time we can reacquire the skills mastery level.

Your learning and skills acquisition is all about repetition, variation and adaption.
You may not beaware of your non conscious skills mastery. It is all incremental.
The unconscious brain calculation function and skills to shoot are not instinctual.....do not try to tell me that you mastered the bow or a car without training, coaching and practice. Talk to any teacher, trainer or coach and try to run that one by them.

The brain uses reference points and makes calculations and controls your body some have had more practice, others have more ability and inherent body sense.

From my experience not too many archers succeed shooting a large number of arrows at longer distances by instinctive means. From 30/40 metres in and gaps are very difficult. At this point the body sense and "instinctive" shooting comes into its own IF there has been a lot of practice over a long time.

Kev

Just now been able to read this the whole way through...wireless USB died 2 days ago about 5 minutes out of warrenty..

Exactly correct IMO Kev.

Troy

[Nephew]

i just sat here and read this thread all the way through ,now i know why i jump them usually,it all goes over my head...........

Same here, Bud! I thought I understood, but nuh! Focus, draw, release, she hits the mark, you beauty! That's alls the thinkin' it needs, yeah?

[Brumbies Country]

To explore from another perspective-I wonder why the "haymaker" punch, thrown spontaneously, without prep, certainly without thought will almost always connect better, and do more damage, than the planned, disciplined, practised punch? Could this be why blokes are killed in pub fights more often than ring fights?
Some of you blokes will know what I mean. If you try to box in a pub fight with timing and discipline, you'll get done like a dinner... but if you go wild and crazy, plan nothing, just throw the switch to "berserk"and fight like a mad dog in fear of losing it's life, 9 out of 10 times you'll walk away (relatively) intact!

(Disclaimer- I am not a fighting aficionado, nor do I claim status as a pub brawler. However, in my youth I did witness many dish-ups at the Chardons Cnr and Annerley Junction Hotels, sometimes the Red Brick, the Wooloongabba, Normanby 5 ways, Broadway, or Balmoral pubs too, and saw quite a few examples of what I have described here... Ahhh...those were the days...Pubs as Pubs should be...No "Metrosexuals" or "Snags" to annoy a man trying to enjoy a beer back then, no chrome and glass or "baristas" either! Plenty of WW2 vets, though. As a young man, I enjoyed nothing so much as spending a Friday evening chatting to those blokes about a previous, better Australia.)

Sorry to get in late on this but I can relate to the situation. Same era, different state, Bells and McQuarrie pubs in Woolamaloo, Sydney town. Used to get down there as a break from university studies. Was doing a bit of boxing as a sport at the time. Only got involved once in a bar-room/streetside brawl, but saw plenty. A haymaker does occasionally score but I'd claim they are not instinctive, rather weight of numbers. I'd back the claim it was a different Australia then .

I'm with Grahame; I think instinctive shooting is a learned reaction. Some people learn propioceptive skills very quicky. I don't . I'd love to apparenty instinctively shoot the way some of you guys do. Have to say my best shooting has ben stringwalking which involves a direct aiming method but gap shooting when I'm on my game is my fallback these days. It works best for me calculating point on then maximum gaps under is half that distance etc. Interesting that Larry Yien in Masters of the Barebow 2 refers primarily to gap shooting but says it eventually becomes almost instinctive. He's useful .

[Dennis La Varenne]

Afternoon all,

I just found that the post I did two days ago didn't take. Here it is again pretty much.

Kev wrote:

There are two problems here.
Instinctive is the wrong term.
Not many of us are bio mechanists.
I would have thought that if true "instinctive" shooting is a reality that instinctive shooters could shoot any target static or stationary with any bow at any distance the first day they picked up a bow out of the bag without any coach or adviser telling them anything and without any training.....doesn't happen.

Instinctive shooting IS the correct term.

What is being missed through all this is that INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING is a technical traditional archery term to describe a particular kind of shooting style which disregards all kinds of conscious judgement to perform the shot.

The 'instinctive' adjective is used by us in its traditional and historical manner to mean that which is done without conscious deliberation and out of seemingly natural inclinations as opposed to the latter day SCIENTIFIC reduction of the term to mean quite precise and specific physiological/bio-mechanical responses. This debate always falls into this semantic trap. We are not talking about science. We are talking about archery and specifically about a particular form of shooting. Whether or not there is any degree of learned response is irrelevant to the archery definition.

That is the difference.

[bigbob]

I wasnt going to make further comment on what was hoped was only a philosophical debate on what constituted 'instinctive archery' but have to weaken and just say I totally agree, Dennis. If you shoot instinctive you know what it is you do, and as Fred Bear would have said .Nock an arrow, bore a hole in the 'target' and let it go.

[longbowinfected]

Dennis,

everything we do in life is a learnt response.
irrespective of your demand to cling to a particular term or name does not change the science contained within the fact. Science is not a dirty word. The name chosen by those who choose to give the myth life is misleading. Same thing as the silly names calling flatbows longbows and real longbows ELBs.

Why do you think the English were required to practise every Sunday?
Look at the science in Ascham.

Science is life and like life new different ways are used to observe, record and come to conclusions. Not thinking consciously is the absolute sign of greatly practiced
subconscious mastery. You cannot shoot instinctively and wel without practice.

We will always disagree. i can see where you are coming from but the term is badly named and formed and nothing you could say wil change that. So we really should agree to disagree but respect the fact we both passionately care about all things archery related.

Kev

[Dennis La Varenne]

Kevin,

Science is not a dirty work and never has been in my book. But you are still missing the point.

We traditional archers are just as free to devise our own technical terms applicable to archery and how we do it, just like every other sphere of knowledge in this world.

WE call it instinctive shooting as a technical term of traditional archery, NOT of science, irrespective of the degree of Pavlovian response involved. I reiterate -

What is being missed through all this is that INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING is a technical traditional archery term to describe a particular kind of shooting style which disregards all kinds of conscious judgement to perform the shot.

The 'instinctive' adjective is used by us in its traditional and historical manner to mean that which is done without conscious deliberation and out of seemingly natural inclinations as opposed to the latter day SCIENTIFIC reduction of the term to mean quite precise and specific physiological/bio-mechanical responses.

We are not trying to be scientific except in our methods of studying what we do. Nor are the terms applied to any particular form of bow as you example in your post above derived from any particular field of science either. THEY ARE TECHNICAL ARCHERY TERMS - our terms - devised by archers to describe our equipment according to archery standards, not the standards of any discipline of the formal fields of scientific study. The terms are descriptors not applicable outside of archery.

Any scientist worth their salt undertaking an examination of archery using scientific method would begin with OUR terms and definitions, not those from the fields of physics of biology when examining what we do.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Kevin,

Science is not a dirty work and never has been in my book. But you are still missing the point.

We traditional archers are just as free to devise our own technical terms applicable to archery and how we do it, just like every other sphere of knowledge in this world.

WE call it instinctive shooting as a technical term of traditional archery, NOT of science, irrespective of the degree of Pavlovian response involved. I reiterate -

What is being missed through all this is that INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING is a technical traditional archery term to describe a particular kind of shooting style which disregards all kinds of conscious judgement to perform the shot.

The 'instinctive' adjective is used by us in its traditional and historical manner to mean that which is done without conscious deliberation and out of seemingly natural inclinations as opposed to the latter day SCIENTIFIC reduction of the term to mean quite precise and specific physiological/bio-mechanical responses.

We are not trying to be scientific except in our methods of studying what we do. Nor are the terms applied to any particular form of bow as you example in your post above derived from any particular field of science either. THEY ARE TECHNICAL ARCHERY TERMS - our terms - devised by archers to describe our equipment according to archery standards, not the standards of any discipline of the formal fields of scientific study. The terms are descriptors not applicable outside of archery.

Any scientist worth their salt undertaking an examination of archery using scientific method would begin with OUR terms and definitions, not those from the fields of physics of biology when examining what we do.

Sure any scientist would begin there and I'm pretty sure would initially find the term confusing and misleading. It would require qualification within the parameters of Archery and be seen as a quaint, bemusing and misused term.

I think the scientist is likely to add a footnote to say that "hence the use of the word is quite peculiar but it has little consequence for the world in general and archery in particular if the word is used with complete inaccuracy. Practiced Automatic Prediction would however accomodate the techniques constantly described" ergo we are able to say that Instinctive Method = so much PAP."

The other thing is though, is that it is not just used in this special way is it... as just a idiosyncratic descriptive label. You and others have suggested that instinctive is very real in the "Instinctive Shooting Method" and the mystery of it is consistantly mentioned. You have stated that what you do is INSTINCTIVE.

Changing the value of the term at this point is merely clouding the issue rather than contributing to the clarity. Unless you are now saying that instinctive IS just a lable that everyone likes and agrees upon but it is by definition of what we understand the word to mean ..inaccurate.

When you say that "We are not trying to be scientific except in our methods of studying what we do" isn't science about the methodology and accumulation of knowledge? And the complimentary and contradictory have equal place...one is largely defined by the other. If you are using scientific method...you are doing science.

So excluding the observations of equally talented, enthusiastic and genuine archers seems to fly in the face of scientic methodology and correct me if I am wrong but doesn't science dislike "special terms".

[Chase N. Nocks]

a dialogue on this interesting topic central to the way many barebow and traditional archers play and view their sport.

Unhappily, this thread (Instinctive shooting - an instinctive shooter's perspective ) has turned into what I was hoping it wouldn't - one side accusing those who shoot instinctively that it doesn't exist and the instinctive shooters being made to justify their shooting method.

Dennis I find it interesting that you use a term such as "accusing" in the opening sentence of your last post. What I see more importantly is a dialogue to arrive at correct terminology. I have seen you pursue the grail of correct terminology with viger in discussions on Longbows.

You also say non-instinctive shooters are making instinctive shooters justify their shooting method. It seems to me that those non-instinctive shooters are not making anything but articulating their take on the shooting method that we all actually share. That is an important point....we are all doing basically the same thing. They are not asking for anything that they are not willing to provide themselves.

I was hoping for a thread where instinctive shooters themselves tried to explain just what it was that they do and how they did it so far as possible. I am not interested in whether disbelievers shoot their bows a different way. We all know that many people do, and we are not interested in converting or arguing them into our style of shooting.

Yes I am leaving your thread alone now. I will still view each new post as I am also interested in as you say "...try to explain just what it was that they do and how they did it.." I'm doing it to by the way. This is not an issue of style nor technique but of first principles that stand outside archery. Eating is an instinct, cooking is not. Mating is an instinct, the Karma Sutra is not. Kev gave an example of driving a car...one I was going to use but my internet keeps failing and it has taken me 5 hours to get together.

I have real difficulty in understanding why it is that non-instinctive shooters have so much trouble accepting those of us who understand what we do, how we do it and choose to call it instinctive shooting.
Are you implying here that I do not understand what I do? Yes it is a choice that you call it instinctive.

So what if there is some degree of learned response in the instinctive method of shooting. That is what allows us to use our instinctive abilities to shoot well without any conscious thought being given to the shot. Everybody has this innate ability, some are much better at it than others, and others are hopeless and MUST use some kind of sighting aid.

So it is learned. I will agree that we have an instinct to learn. We have an instinct for curiousity. I agree that there are varying degrees of ability. Also not all sights archers are necessarily hopeless at barebow but different standards do apply.

Those of us less apt can improve out shooting by practicing shooting without thought until we start hitting the mark regularly. It is no different to gap shooters or sight shooters. Some take to it very easily, others need to practise more. The difference is that sight/gap shooters do so much more deliberately throughout the shooting sequence.

Yes, exactly.

Instinctive shooters allow their unconscious brain to do the work for them and there is no deliberation about the shot and, remarkably so often, allows an instinctive shooter to take a shot successfully in a situation and under conditions never encountered before where sight/gap shooters are so often flabbergasted especially in uneven terrain.

There is deliberation. It is happening the moment the target becomes the focus of your attention and your fingers are on the string. It takes place quicker and with greater fluidity than the other techniques but I believe that a similar process is taking place there as well. It is just that the gap shooter is paying attention to the inner voice, your style (my style) is not. Unconscious does not equal instinctive. Flabbergasting shots as you have described , which we have all made, are simply as I stated previously about experience and prediction. Experience teaches us consequenciality.

Instinctive shooting is nothing less than shooting without any conscious thought being given to the shot - that is all. There is nothing mysterious about it.

And yet it keeps popping up as a mystery chiefly amongst the advocates.

I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp. If one's unconscious brain is doing all the work of target aquisition enabling one to hit the mark, then that is instinctive.

No, that's calculation.

.....We are all born with certain instinctive abilities, one of which is could be called 'target aquisition' for want of a better term - the ability to perceive an object and know how far away it is and how quickly it is moving. Practice refines that instinctive ability, but it is still inherently instinctive. We train our bodies to react more in tune with what our brains have already figured out, not the other way around.

Yes we have instincts but they are base and vulgar, as in unsophisticated and provide the the platform for sophisticated abilities and techniques to come into existence or be refined. When you speak of Instinctive you are speaking of a priori knowledge, the knowledge of hardwiring. and you keep using terms like learn and train and refine and have given examples of a practice regime that promoted a fluid and unconscious style.. it seems deliberately.

[perry]

Obviously I've got a tip off this thread was actice and I thought I'd put my answer to Dennis's original question but I'll find it impossible not to digress when answering this thread as we each have our own thought process's that go into our Archery and that need some expanding on.

I will not go into the individual steps of my shot sequence, the fact I have a shot sequence is enough in the context of this thread. I will post some of my musings and ask a lot of questions. These form a desire for constant improvemnt with my barebow archery and are as important to me as continually developing my shot sequence. It is always possible to improve on things. My Traditional Archery is in a constant state of evolution.

I was taught to shoot a bow in a deliberate pattern, to develop a shot sequence that I can repeat, that is consistent. The fact that I was taught how to shoot a bow points to the fact that I developed a series of learned behaviour's that form a shot sequence that over time have moved from my conscious mind to my sub conscious mind as my skills with a Bow and Arrow developed, as they have become ingrained and Automatic.

In the context of how Instinctive is used today I am not instinctive archer, Split Vision as decribed by Howard Hill is more accurate. I make no conscious effort to use a gap or pick a point yet I am aware of the goings on in my perifial vision. On moving targets I am not aware of allowing any lead of using Split Vision. I adapt my shooting techniques to changing situations. But through repitition I have learned a series of steps consciously that have become so ingrained I perform them automatically in each situation.

I also believe that it is possible that an Archer that started with a deliberate Gap method can practice his craft to a point where his conscious disisions become sub conscious. If you are not aware of doing something such as using a Gap when shooting your bow it is not as simple as saying this is real Instinctive shooting. From my side of the fence I most often hear Instinctive Archers having a dig! I believe it is more common for Instinctive shooters to have the problem with Gap shooter's I do not understand why - we all are brothers of the bow. Why the hysteria when a bloke admits he Gaps, Face Walks or String Walks. If Instinctive is so natural why then do Instinctive Archers get beaten in competion so regularlywhen matched with method shooters. Could it be the method shooter has a better shot sequence and has worked harder at his craft.

What I will say about my shot sequence is that if I am having a bad day and find it difficult to focus then I shoot poorly because the start of my shot sequence is focusing on the task at hand - to complete a perfect shot, to allow my sub conscious to control the shot. Every time my conscious mind enters the equasion I stuff up. If I hit the mark it's pure luck or memory at work. Over 30 + years of shooting you learn a few tricks to help at such times, most are not advisable.

I am a Nah Sayer, I believe the term "Instinctive" is a misnomer. I believe shooting a Bow and Arrow or any other projectile Tool / Weapon is a learned behaviour. I believe that Instinctive is an attempt to expalin the mysteries of the sub conscious mind.

If shooting any tool / weapon that propels a projectile be it a Bow and Arrow, Slingshot or a Shotgun was instinctive why then can we not pick up this said tool / weapon and shoot it as naturally as we breath. Why must we be taught to do this if it is truely Instinctive. Why must we develop repeatable form. Throughout the coarse of our everyday lives we have been exposed to these things, preparing for these things, even if it's a simple as watching an episode of the Lone Ranger as young children.

We have a conscious understanding of how these things work but we must practice and learn their intricisies to become skilled in their use. Why is it so important to practice consistently, to have matched equipment, I'll bet that if handed you an arrow that was double the weight of the rest of your arrows that deep in the workings of that most marvelous instrument - your Brain, the moment you feel the weight of the heavy arrow unconsciously you point it higher. What has happened is that throughout our lives we have prepared for the act of propelling this projectile through observation and exposure in a myriad of ways that we have commited to our Sub conscious memory and draw on as needed.

Now the clincher - I'm human , I screw up and I'm happy enough to admit that - I loose my shot sequence every now and again and understand how to fix the problem through learned behaviour's.

When I'm shooting well - I make no conscious effort to Aim, I make no conscious effort to check line with the arrow point, I make no conscious effort to judge distance. Yet when I am aware that I am aiming, I am conscious I see the arrow point and I find myself doubting I have judged the distance to the target correctly. My conscious mind has screwed things up. I then come down from full draw [ Yeah right ] refocus, visualise my shot sequence and the resulting perfect shot and soon enough I'm back shooting sub consciously again.

The battle is training your Shot sequence to deliver 100% of perfect sub conscious shot's - I'll wager there has never been a Human that can do this. The likes of Don Bradman and Howard Hill and Olympic Gold medalists are perhaps the ultimate expressions of the ability to maintain a perfect shot sequence / subconscious effort in the modern era at their respective sports.

Last points - If someone has developed a series of what is judged as poor form such as flapping your arms around like a demented chook, so long as you can repeat these actions precisely every shot you will shoot with tack driving accuracy. You have developed a repeatable shot sequence. What we understand as correct form has been proven to be more conducive to accurate shooting through economy of movement than the wasted effort of flapping your arms like a demented chook, poor weight distribution etc.

There is always someone who proves an exception to every rule. Good luck to them. If anyone can pull off a freak shot as earlier posted it can simply be expalined that everything, all those learned behaviours have come together - that 100% perfect sub conscious shot, you know the shot that we are all capable of but being human can only rarely make.

Broken record and rant over

regards Jacko

Please forgive all the edit's, just trying to be clear

[greybeard]

Proprioception,

Am I the first to admit that I did not know what this fancy word means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception

Daryl.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Good evening all once again.

Chase N. Nocks, I have never heard of the scientific disdain for special terms. I would find it pretty interesting under the circumstances when science is absolutely chock-a-block with them, including the word 'instinctive' as you and others have been saying.

The way I see the debate so far is that the nay-sayers deny us instinctive shooters the right to coin our own terms, using science and the scientific method as the arbiter of their claim. Yet, if your arguments hold any water at all, then the very term instinctive is redundant because there is no life form on earth which behaves instinctively. All manner of life learns from experience and improves by repetition.

As you point out, eating is instinctive, cooking is not, etc. Really!!! I would have thought that eating is a stimulus and has nothing to do with instincts. If it were an instinct we would have poisoned ourselves aeons ago from instinctively sticking things down our throats due to hunger. Instead, we taught ourselves what and how to eat - anything but instinctive and none of that was without conscious deliberation in the process.

My argument all along is that the term 'instinctive' as we instinctive shooters have coined and applied to our form of shooting is because it is done without conscious thought and is an apt descriptor of what we do.

There is absolutely no mystery or hocus pocus in that. Again, I reiterate that we have used the term in its historical usage and applied it to our technique. Read through all my posts again. I have never once said or implied there is no learned response, ie practice. My opening post showed just that in my own early training. The debate has centred on whether the term is a misused scientific term or whether it is an appropriately used archery term. I am of the latter view and maintain that view for reasons I have repeated often enough. All the obfuscation has come from nay-sayers trying to rejig a long-established standard archery term by denying that long usage and endeavouring to apply a term from a non-archery field.

The scientific usage of the term 'instinctive' is very much a latter day rejigging of a very old traditional English language term which we instinctive archers have applied to our form of shooting. Science did not invent it and certainly does not have any proprietary rights over its usage other than in the realms of biological sciences where it is used with a very narrow specific meaning. Archery is NOT biology. It is archery, and we are free to devise any term using any word which WE deem appropriate to describe what we do.

Has anybody on this post other than ourselves come up with an alternative term which best describes our technique as concisely? Not once, not even tried.

As you have correctly pointed out, I have often times been a stickler for correct usage of correct terms in regard to archery practice and bow anatomy and design. Here I am again doing the same thing again - trying to ask people to use a standard ARCHERY TERM correctly.

In my last post I invoked the idea that if a scientist were to investigate archery in any particular sphere, they would have to begin with our definitions as a starting point. That is quite correct. I doubt that they would have any problems at all. It would be the scientist who would have to jettison their own preconcieved ideas in regard to terminology where it clashed with their understanding of those terms as used in their own disciplines if they were to get anywhere in any investigation of archery without bias.

Being a scientist, I would hope that their training and lack of bias coupled with their awareness of observer effect in reaching conclusions would preclude their personal/professional biases. That would be clearly explained in the abstract along with the provision of a glossary of archery terms so readers of that paper could understand what was going on in archery terms. Any recommendations for changes in archery terminology, if any were thought appropriate, would form part of the concluding statements. Any indication in such a paper indicating quaintness of terminology or other similar expression would immediately render the paper bias-suspect.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Further to my post above, here is a bit of ferretting I have been doing just a while ago -

From the Oxford Dictionary Online –
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0414370

instinct
noun
Pronunciation:/ˈɪnstɪŋ(k)t/
• an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli: the homing instinct


• a natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: they retain their old authoritarian instincts


• a natural propensity or skill of a specified kind: his instinct for making the most of his chances


• [mass noun] the fact or quality of possessing innate behaviour patterns: instinct told her not to ask the question


adjective
Pronunciation:/ɪnˈstɪŋ(k)t/
(instinct with) formal
• imbued or filled with (a quality, especially a desirable one): these canvases are instinct with passion


Derivatives
instinctual
Pronunciation:/-ˈstɪŋ(k)tjʊəl/
adjective

instinctually
Pronunciation:/-ˈstɪŋ(k)tjʊəli/
adverb
Origin:
late Middle English (also in the sense ‘instigation, impulse’): from Latin instinctus 'impulse', from the verb instinguere, from in- 'towards' + stinguere 'to prick'

From the Miriam Webster Dictionary –
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

instinct
4 ENTRIES FOUND:
• 1) instinct (noun)
• 2) instinct (adjective)
• death instinct (noun)
• killer instinct (noun)

1in·stinct noun \ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\
Definition of INSTINCT
1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.
b: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.
— in·stinc·tu·al adjective
— in·stinc·tu·al·ly adverb
Examples of INSTINCT
• Our first instinct was to run.
• Cats possess a natural hunting instinct.
• Seeing the baby aroused all her maternal instincts.
• He has been guided throughout his career by his political instincts.
• Mere instinct alerted her to the danger.
• He knew by instinct what not to say.
• She seemed to know by instinct that something was wrong.
• He has a strong survival instinct.
• an athlete with good instincts
Origin of INSTINCT
Middle English, from Latin instinctus impulse, from instinguere to incite; akin to Latin instigare to instigate
First Known Use: 15th century

And lastly, Enclopaedia Britannica -
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 9/instinct

instinct, an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. Today instinct is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern. ... (30 of 6240 words) (You have to subscribe to follow any further links unfortunately.)

This last from Britannica indicates that the term HAS changed from its original and historical meanings above which is the usage we instinctive shooters employ in trad archery today.

Clearly from the above, unlike the view of the instinctive shooting nay-sayers, the meaning of the term ‘instinct’ is anything BUT that of the very narrow biological sciences term which they are citing as definitive.

The usages above in no way disqualify - even slightly - the meaning I have been trying to defend on this thread. There are very obviously other historical meanings of the word also quite apart from the biological/neorological usages.

[perry]

Once again I am reminded of the childhood song - "The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round.

For all the long dictionary definitions of "Instinctive" how the word has evolved and whether of not the meaning of the word is understood in different ways - Can anyone tell me why someone who originally learned to shot their Bow and Arrow using a deliberate Aiming method such as Gap, Point of Aim, even a fixed Pin sight that has developed this into a fluid shot sequence, seemless in it's execution, with no conscious decision or calculations being made why this is not "Instinctive" in the context of this thread. Why the insecurity about the purity? of Traditional Archery being challenged by the Ney Sayers

Just because an Archer can not fully explain how they hit the mark, how sometimes "it sort of clicks" does not mean they are witness to something an Archer that chooses to shoot with a conscious method is not.

I believe that in the end that any Archer that shoots in a sub conscious state of mind is using the "Instinctive" method. We really are on the same page. If you are really honest with yourself what is understood as "Instinctive" as practiced by many Trad Archers I see about the traps is a very limited way to shoot. The greatest majority of Trad Archers limit themselves to close range loudly crying thats the range they hunt at so why go beyond there - this is fine - their choice, I am somewhat guilty of this myself at this point. If you wish to hit the mark consistently at extended range you need to refine Instictive shooting and introduce a point of aim or Gap, face walk etc. All Instinctive Archers [ remember context ] could benifit from exploring these conscious shooting methods, it will improve their shot to shot consistency at the least.

If I hear one more time around the traps an Instinctive / Traditional Archer bemoaning another Archer who chooses to shoot using a conscious method regardless of the type of bow used I'll scream, actually any Archer bemoaning anothers choices - again we are all brothers of the Bow. Traditional Archery has a long and proud history. It is deeply steeped in myth and mystery . I will continue the critical thought process questioning Dogma and the exclusive brotherhood that wish to drape themselves in it. I am not interested in point scoring just in getting people to think about this instead of blindly following what has been said before.

regards Jacko

regards Jacko

[Dennis La Varenne]

Perry,

I am not quite sure what the point of your post is.

For all the long dictionary definitions of "Instinctive" how the word has evolved and whether of not the meaning of the word is understood in different ways - Can anyone tell me why someone who originally learned to shot their Bow and Arrow using a deliberate Aiming method such as Gap, Point of Aim, even a fixed Pin sight that has developed this into a fluid shot sequence, seemless in it's execution, with no conscious decision or calculations being made why this is not "Instinctive" in the context of this thread. Why the insecurity about the purity? of Traditional Archery being challenged by the Ney Sayers

Are you saying that these definitions from these sources count for nothing. Who is insecure???? Certainly not me. Nowhere have I made any disparaging remarks against deliberate conscious shooting styles, nor would I. In fact, point of aim, gap method or pin sights are far superior to instinctive shooting in terms of pure repeatable accuracy. I would be the last person to deny that fact, in fact, I would never claim otherwise.

Just because an Archer can not fully explain how they hit the mark, how sometimes "it sort of clicks" does not mean they are witness to something an Archer that chooses to shoot with a conscious method is not.

I think you are reading something into the previous material which has never been said or inferred by anyone including those gainsaying instinctive shooting.

If you are really honest with yourself what is understood as "Instinctive" as practiced by many Trad Archers I see about the traps is a very limited way to shoot.

Has anybody said otherwise anywhere? I know the great majority do not shoot instinctive. That is not under dispute.

The greatest majority of Trad Archers limit themselves to close range loudly crying thats the range they hunt at so why go beyond there - this is fine - their choice, I am somewhat guilty of this myself at this point. If you wish to hit the mark consistently at extended range you need to refine Instictive shooting and introduce a point of aim or Gap, face walk etc. All Instinctive Archers [ remember context ] could benifit from exploring these conscious shooting methods, it will improve their shot to shot consistency at the least.

I have no issue with this either? But there are a few of us who do shoot longer distances instinctively even though we are few.

All Instinctive Archers [ remember context ] could benifit from exploring these conscious shooting methods, it will improve their shot to shot consistency at the least.

. . . and the relevance of this comment to the topic is . . .?????

It is deeply steeped in myth and mystery

I do hope not.

I will continue the critical thought process questioning Dogma and the exclusive brotherhood that wish to drape themselves in it.

This is a bit puzzling. Which 'Dogma' are you referring to and who is this exclusive brotherhood? I have never heard of any such group. Anybody can shoot instinctively if they wish. Nobody is discriminated against if they want to shoot that way, nor are they discriminated against by instinctive shooters if they don't. Why on earth would we? There is nothing to gain for us. Everybody is quite free to shoot as they wish without recrimination.

All I have been saying throughout is that we instinctive shooters reserve to ourselves the right to describe the manner in which we shoot by a term which we believe best describes how we do it, and which, by the way, also fits in with those dictionary descriptions I cited above. Gainsayers so far have only been trying to say that we are mistaken in our usage of the term 'instinctive', saying the word has only one correct application which is of a biological sciences origin, whilst I have been arguing that the term has as much validity from a linguistics standpoint. That is all.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Good evening all once again.

Chase N. Nocks, I have never heard of the scientific disdain for special terms. I would find it pretty interesting under the circumstances when science is absolutely chock-a-block with them, including the word 'instinctive' as you and others have been saying.

Yes, sorry science IS full of special terms what it does not like, at least in my understanding, is for those special terms to be used ambiguously. I will try to find some references that speak of this.

The way I see the debate so far is that the nay-sayers deny us instinctive shooters the right to coin our own terms, using science and the scientific method as the arbiter of their claim. Yet, if your arguments hold any water at all, then the very term instinctive is redundant because there is no life form on earth which behaves instinctively. All manner of life learns from experience and improves by repetition.

Are you sure there are no life forms on earth that behave instinctively? Bacteria? I think instinct plays a role with every lifeform on earth. The complexity of their environmental and social interactions determines the degree to which instinct plays a part. For insects I would say that the vast majority of their activity is hardwired and they have an extraordinarily limited window for learning, and for most situations none at all. The mechanism for their success is evolution via gene vs environment. Mutation and successful traits being past on. I believe in instinct, I just don't believe in instinctive shooting, that is, a higher order activity determined by instinct.

As you point out, eating is instinctive, cooking is not, etc. Really!!! I would have thought that eating is a stimulus and has nothing to do with instincts. If it were an instinct we would have poisoned ourselves aeons ago from instinctively sticking things down our throats due to hunger. Instead, we taught ourselves what and how to eat - anything but instinctive and none of that was without conscious deliberation in the process.

Yes, really. Hunger would be the stimulus. And eating and cooking are far from the same thing. Ahh I think you will find that there is general anthropological agreement that humans have poisoned themselves many times over across hundreds of millenia but as you then say we taught ourselves (or those young ones in our care that would readily and enthusiatically poison themselves) not to. So you haven't shown that eating is not instinctive just that we have learned what to eat.

My argument all along is that the term 'instinctive' as we instinctive shooters have coined and applied to our form of shooting is because it is done without conscious thought and is an apt descriptor of what we do.

If you are saying that the term Instinctive is merely archery's specific but interchangable word for learned automation than I agree. That is simply what I was saying. If we are saying the same thing how could I have been a nay-sayer.

There is absolutely no mystery or hocus pocus in that. Again, I reiterate that we have used the term in its historical usage and applied it to our technique. Read through all my posts again. I have never once said or implied there is no learned response, ie practice. My opening post showed just that in my own early training. The debate has centred on whether the term is a misused scientific term or whether it is an appropriately used archery term. I am of the latter view and maintain that view for reasons I have repeated often enough. All the obfuscation has come from nay-sayers trying to rejig a long-established standard archery term by denying that long usage and endeavouring to apply a term from a non-archery field.

I agree there is no hocus pocus and have said that from the beginning. It is no mystery. And as I said to Bob. He has been preparing for those shots since he was born. Every activity and every action has consequences and reactions and the more numerous and more varied those activities the more refined our abilities become. Same if those activities are specific like shooting a bow. Archery is not a self contained universe but an extension of an already comprehensive set of skills and knowledge. Bob was at least able to predict that those discs, in the absence of some drasic external stimulus, would continue in a particular manner and his existing skills were able to predict and compensate ie fill the gaps for lack of experience. A baby however would have been no less surprised if the discs had suddenly changed direction or accelorated as they moved along.

The scientific usage of the term 'instinctive' is very much a latter day rejigging of a very old traditional English language term which we instinctive archers have applied to our form of shooting. Science did not invent it and certainly does not have any proprietary rights over its usage other than in the realms of biological sciences where it is used with a very narrow specific meaning. Archery is NOT biology. It is archery, and we are free to devise any term using any word which WE deem appropriate to describe what we do.

Of course we are free to play with words. We are free to disagree about their use or appropriateness as well especially when a term implies something specific or becomes ambiguous and we are in the process of clarifying it. From what I have seen and read on this forum and other archery forums there are archers that are NOT using it in this archery specific way but are using it in the scientific way and not just in the scientific way (which is I believe is also consistant with common/general public usage). There are many things science did not invent but has clarified much. Archers that are using it in a literal non-archery sense and this is where the questioning really begins. Are you suggesting that it is not being used in that way?

No hurry, I am sure you are busy as am I but I would like to here more about the origins of this terms relationship with archery. Considering the regimented training that was involved with say English archery (as you were mentioning English language use) I wonder at the relationship as English archery was about training, training and training.

Has anybody on this post other than ourselves come up with an alternative term which best describes our technique as concisely? Not once, not even tried.

Unconscious, Fluid, Automatic, Learned. PAP: Practiced Automatic Prediction. But by all means keep the term Instinctive but let's be clear what we are talking about. I have used the word conveniately for most of my archery-life but when another archer used it I would always ask what they meant by it. Why? Because it does not even have a specific and agreed archery use once you start talking to a few different archers.

As you have correctly pointed out, I have often times been a stickler for correct usage of correct terms in regard to archery practice and bow anatomy and design. Here I am again doing the same thing again - trying to ask people to use a standard ARCHERY TERM correctly.

Exactly. So am I. Your experiences with the bow are almost a mirror image of my own. And our method of taking the shot is, from what you describe, the same (subject to minor physical and private language idiosyncracies). And yet you use the word "Instinctive" to describe "what you do" and I do not. Even the issue concerning shot correction we posted basically the same thing without any collaboration. That is why I said it is not uncommon for me to miss a target with all three arrows but all three end up in the same group. I have no way of correcting the first shot with my second shot because even though I see my arrow point I have not noticed it. I have no conscious point of reference for adjustment. Faith in what I have practiced usually means I give the automatic process a 2nd chance thus the 3rd arrow is a wash out and I hope to shot a "missed group" rather than have one go in and confuse the issue even more.

In my last post I invoked the idea that if a scientist were to investigate archery in any particular sphere, they would have to begin with our definitions as a starting point. That is quite correct. I doubt that they would have any problems at all. It would be the scientist who would have to jettison their own preconcieved ideas in regard to terminology where it clashed with their understanding of those terms as used in their own disciplines if they were to get anywhere in any investigation of archery without bias.

Being a scientist, I would hope that their training and lack of bias coupled with their awareness of observer effect in reaching conclusions would preclude their personal/professional biases. That would be clearly explained in the abstract along with the provision of a glossary of archery terms so readers of that paper could understand what was going on in archery terms. Any recommendations for changes in archery terminology, if any were thought appropriate, would form part of the concluding statements. Any indication in such a paper indicating quaintness of terminology or other similar expression would immediately render the paper bias-suspect.

Possibly bias-suspect but all observation and reporting is subjective. I think it would be not out of step for the footnote as I have described as a means of clarifying subject specific terminology to that used by science and the rest of the community. Scientists do not simply use the term "colour" when describing quarks without qualification because this term has a specific usage out side of the field of quantum physics.

I think my arguments are holding water.

[Chase N. Nocks]

instinct
Word History
Date of Origin 15th c.The etymological notion underlying instinct (and also the closely related instigate) is of ‘goading onwards with a pointed stick’. Its ultimate source is Latin instinguere ‘urge onwards, incite’, a compound verb formed from the prefix in- ‘on’ and stinguere ‘prick, goad’. Source also of English distinct and extinct, this goes back to the same root, *stig-, as produced English stick and Latin stīgāre ‘prick, goad’, the ancestor of English instigate (16th c.). The noun derived from it, instinctus, originally meant ‘incitement, instigation’, but it eventually moved on to ‘impulse’, the sense it had when English acquired it. The more specialized ‘innate impulse’ developed in the mid 16th century.


Instinct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Instinct (disambiguation).
Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed. Examples of instinctual fixed action patterns can be observed in the behavior of animals, which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are not based upon prior experience, such as reproduction, and feeding among insects. Sea turtles, hatched on a beach, automatically move toward the ocean, and honeybees communicate by dance the direction of a food source, all without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and building of nests. Another term for the same concept is innate behavior.
Instinctual actions - in contrast to actions based on learning which are served by memory and which provide individually stored successful reactions built upon experience - have no learning curve, they are hard-wired and ready to use without learning. Some instinctual behaviors depend on maturational processes to appear.

Biological predispositions are innate biologically vectored behaviors that can be easily learned. For example in one hour, a baby colt can learn to stand, walk, glide, skip, hop and run. A biological predisposition may also mean that a person, because of his/her genetic makeup, is more prone to certain conditions or disease. Learning is required to fine tune the neurological wiring reflex like behavior. True reflexes can be distinguished from instincts by their seat in the nervous system; reflexes are controlled by spinal or other peripheral ganglia, but instincts are the province of the brain. In a situation when two instincts contradict each other, an animal may resort to a displacement activity.

[Chase N. Nocks]

In the context of how Instinctive is used today I am not instinctive archer, Split Vision as decribed by Howard Hill is more accurate. I make no conscious effort to use a gap or pick a point yet I am aware of the goings on in my perifial vision. On moving targets I am not aware of allowing any lead of using Split Vision. I adapt my shooting techniques to changing situations. But through repitition I have learned a series of steps consciously that have become so ingrained I perform them automatically in each situation.

I am a Nah Sayer, I believe the term "Instinctive" is a misnomer. I believe shooting a Bow and Arrow or any other projectile Tool / Weapon is a learned behaviour. I believe that Instinctive is an attempt to expalin the mysteries of the sub conscious mind.

Yes Perry, as Dennis says it is an old term, that I think comes with old baggage. Things that were a mystery when it may have been used in archery are no longer a mystery.

We have a conscious understanding of how these things work but we must practice and learn their intricisies to become skilled in their use. Why is it so important to practice consistently, to have matched equipment, I'll bet that if handed you an arrow that was double the weight of the rest of your arrows that deep in the workings of that most marvelous instrument - your Brain, the moment you feel the weight of the heavy arrow unconsciously you point it higher. What has happened is that throughout our lives we have prepared for the act of propelling this projectile through observation and exposure in a myriad of ways that we have commited to our Sub conscious memory and draw on as needed.

If anyone can pull off a freak shot as earlier posted it can simply be expalined that everything, all those learned behaviours have come together - that 100% perfect sub conscious shot, you know the shot that we are all capable of but being human can only rarely make.

Exactly. Just being alive and mobile teaches us many skills we take for granted and use automatically but they are far from instinctive.

[Stickbow Hunter]

I really don't care what aiming methods other people use; the only thing that matters to me is that my shooting method works for me. I have never used any conscious form of aiming ever. No split vision as per Howard Hill, no point of aim, no gap, no sights etc etc; ever. I explained how I shoot in an earlier post so won't repeat it here.

I am an Instinctive shooter!

Jeff

[Dennis La Varenne]

Chase N. Nocks,

I think my arguments are holding water.

Indeed??? Most of them read to me at best as being very tangential to the topic and almost to the point of being on another train track rather than countering my claims about the definition of the traditional archery term 'instinctive shooting' as I understand it and have been trying to explain it.

From my own posts, again -

Science did not invent it and certainly does not have any proprietary rights over its usage other than in the realms of biological sciences where it is used with a very narrow specific meaning. Archery is NOT biology. It is archery, and we are free to devise any term using any word which WE deem appropriate to describe what we do.

All I have been saying throughout is that we instinctive shooters reserve to ourselves the right to describe the manner in which we shoot by a term which we believe best describes how we do it, and which, by the way, also fits in with those dictionary descriptions I cited above. Gainsayers so far have only been trying to say that we are mistaken in our usage of the term 'instinctive', saying the word has only one correct application which is of a biological sciences origin, whilst I have been arguing that the term has as much validity from a linguistics standpoint. That is all.

The usages above in no way disqualify - even slightly - the meaning I have been trying to defend on this thread. There are very obviously other historical meanings of the word also quite apart from the biological/neorological usages.

Instinctive shooters allow their unconscious brain to do the work for them and there is no deliberation about the shot and, remarkably so often, allows an instinctive shooter to take a shot successfully in a situation and under conditions never encountered before where sight/gap shooters are so often flabbergasted especially in uneven terrain.

Instinctive shooting is nothing less than shooting without any conscious thought being given to the shot - that is all. There is nothing mysterious about it.

From your post -

But by all means keep the term Instinctive but let's be clear what we are talking about. I have used the word conveniately for most of my archery-life but when another archer used it I would always ask what they meant by it. Why? Because it does not even have a specific and agreed archery use once you start talking to a few different archers.

And so the point of all your posts is . . . .????

Since I started my archery back in the early 1980s, I was introduced to the term which was already well understood among both field archers and hunters and the majority of them shot this method back then. They had a very clear understanding of their technique and described it among themselves and to me in the same way that I have described it here. I have still to meet the instinctive shooter who doesn't understand what they are about, so I would be careful about generalising your claim about instinctive shooting and its protagonists.

[Mick Smith]

I must admit, I haven’t read through all the rather lengthy posts relating to this thread, so if this aspect of the act of shooting an arrow with a bow has already been covered, then I apologise.

The human brain is a truly amazing thing. It is capable of incredible feats. However the brain doesn’t function like most people think it does. We all have one, but we don’t all know how it works.

It came as a shock to me to discover that the little voice that talks inside my head isn’t really me. Yes, it is my conscious brain, but the real ‘me’ is to found deeper down. The real me doesn’t actually speak. It’s a part of my brain where my basic likes and dislikes are to be found. It’s the real control room. It’s the place where the real decisions are made. It’s the place where the real me dwells. It’s known as the sub-conscious.

Sure, it all sounds like pure BS, yet it has been proven to be true. Our conscience brain is totally incapable of making any decisions instantly. It must first confer with the sub-conscious. Scientists have conducted experiments where subjects have been ‘wired up’ to measure their electrical brain activity. They have then been asked simple questions where the answer is either a yes or a no. Amazingly, the scientists were able to see what the answer was going to be, seconds before the individual even knew what it was going to be. The decision was being made in the sub-conscious and it was the electrical activity in this part of the brain that was being measured. The answer was still being transmitted to the conscious.

The conscious brain is great for deliberating over a longer time frame. It also acts in an advisory role to the sub-conscious brain. Many of the higher functions that we humans are capable of are performed in our conscious brain, but these functions are always subservient to our true selves, the sub-conscious.

What does this have to do with archery, you might ask? Well quite a lot, in my opinion. When we are faced with performing complicated tasks, it’s our conscious brain that’s initially given to role to sort it out and then relay its findings to the sub-conscious for approval. This is why beginners are so inept. Every action must be worked out and every action must be totally analysed by both the conscious and sub-conscious before and during its execution.

Once we become proficient, it’s because our sub-conscious has almost fully taken over the proceedings. How often have you heard the phrase uttered after a miss, “I thought too much about that shot”? By consciously thinking about any physical activity, you must then contend with the time delays between the two parts of our brains. This time delay completely upsets any fluidity and poise of any action.

Unfortunately, the sub-conscious doesn’t appear to be very bright, well not mine anyway. It’s functions have more to do with basic likes and dislikes and such. It doesn’t seem to have much power to rationalise problems. This is why we have the weird condition commonly known as ‘target panic’. Our fluid sub-conscious has developed a ‘short circuit’ where, once we have our ‘sight picture’ in mind, the ‘trigger’ to shoot is ordered. The sub-conscious doesn’t particularly care about the conscious brains protest saying that you’re still only at half draw. The command to shoot is all over riding. The primitive old sub-conscious has to be retrained like some pet dog to do the process correctly, with the conscious brain delicately taking on the responsibility of the training process, but only it’s only an advisory role though.

So, is instinctive shooting really instinctive? To my mind good shooting has to be, as the sub-conscious is in total control and another term that could well describe our sub-conscious is our ’instinct’, in much the same manner as animals are often described as doing things by instinct. You see, the main thing that separates us from most animals is our high functioning conscious brain. All animals have a sub-conscious brain that’s not all that dissimilar to our own.

You may, or may not agree with me, but this is the way I see it.

Mick

[perry]

Forgive the different colour text, be buggered if I can work out how to multi quote

Perry,

I am not quite sure what the point of your post is.

For all the long dictionary definitions of "Instinctive" how the word has evolved and whether of not the meaning of the word is understood in different ways - Can anyone tell me why someone who originally learned to shot their Bow and Arrow using a deliberate Aiming method such as Gap, Point of Aim, even a fixed Pin sight that has developed this into a fluid shot sequence, seemless in it's execution, with no conscious decision or calculations being made why this is not "Instinctive" in the context of this thread. Why the insecurity about the purity? of Traditional Archery being challenged by the Ney Sayers

Are you saying that these definitions from these sources count for nothing. Who is insecure???? Certainly not me. Nowhere have I made any disparaging remarks against deliberate conscious shooting styles, nor would I. In fact, point of aim, gap method or pin sights are far superior to instinctive shooting in terms of pure repeatable accuracy. I would be the last person to deny that fact, in fact, I would never claim otherwise.

I did not intend to give you the impression I was dismissing your dictionary quote Dennis, - All I asked is that folks tell me in their own words the belief they held before you posted the long dictionary definition which I guarantee most would skip right past - Can anyone tell me why someone who originally learned to shot their Bow and Arrow using a deliberate Aiming method such as Gap, Point of Aim, even a fixed Pin sight that has developed this into a fluid shot sequence, seemless in it's execution, with no conscious decision or calculations being made why this is not "Instinctive" in the context of this thread. Why the insecurity about the purity? of Traditional Archery being challenged by the Ney Sayers

Does anyone wish to answer this question?

It is also fair enough to ask why folks consider method shooting as an assault on the perceived purity of Traditional Archery. It is obvious that the Trad Archers in both our states are very different. Very few if any of our experiences mirror each other. Up here it is a almost a rule, a sport to bag any Archer that does not fit the Traditional Ideal, ie Instinctive shooter, wood arrows, laminated timber riser

Just because an Archer can not fully explain how they hit the mark, how sometimes "it sort of clicks" does not mean they are witness to something an Archer that chooses to shoot with a conscious method is not.

I think you are reading something into the previous material which has never been said or inferred by anyone including those gainsaying instinctive shooting.Perhaps Dennis but this sentance was intended as a lead into the following paragraphs, you have exposed my poor structuring of this post at worst

If you are really honest with yourself what is understood as "Instinctive" as practiced by many Trad Archers I see about the traps is a very limited way to shoot.

Has anybody said otherwise anywhere? I know the great majority do not shoot instinctive. That is not under dispute.if read in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph it is clear what I am saying

The greatest majority of Trad Archers limit themselves to close range loudly crying thats the range they hunt at so why go beyond there - this is fine - their choice, I am somewhat guilty of this myself at this point. If you wish to hit the mark consistently at extended range you need to refine Instictive shooting and introduce a point of aim or Gap, face walk etc. All Instinctive Archers [ remember context ] could benifit from exploring these conscious shooting methods, it will improve their shot to shot consistency at the least.

I have no issue with this either? But there are a few of us who do shoot longer distances instinctively even though we are few.I am pleased that you have the skill to shoot at extended range 'Instinctively', many folks do not, myself included

All Instinctive Archers [ remember context ] could benifit from exploring these conscious shooting methods, it will improve their shot to shot consistency at the least.

. . . and the relevance of this comment to the topic is . . .?????read in the whole paragraph it is self explanitory and a worthy point to make, I just want Archers to strive to learn more about barebow shooting in the interests of becoming better Archers

It is deeply steeped in myth and mystery

I do hope not.Seriously? You have never experienced any myth or mystery in all the years you have been around Archery - WOW!

I will continue the critical thought process questioning Dogma and the exclusive brotherhood that wish to drape themselves in it.

This is a bit puzzling. Which 'Dogma' are you referring to and who is this exclusive brotherhood?Another example of different exposure and experience - All to often I hear a Trad Archer openly imply a fellow archer is a cheat cause they method shoot, they create rules designed to exclude method shooters from their exclusive Trad shoots - The Trad Police are the Exclusive Brotherhood, those that will hold Traditional Archery to a snap shot in time, those with closed minds that will not accept Traditional Archery is in a constant state of change and it's boundary's are expanding I have never heard of any such group. Anybody can shoot instinctively if they wish. Nobody is discriminated against if they want to shoot that way, nor are they discriminated against by instinctive shooters if they don't. Why on earth would we? There is nothing to gain for us. Everybody is quite free to shoot as they wish without recrimination.Different world again - in my experience there is all to many Trad Archers prepared to discriminate. I am heartily sick of it and do not understand why either

All I have been saying throughout is that we instinctive shooters reserve to ourselves the right to describe the manner in which we shoot by a term which we believe best describes how we do itI agree to this point, and which, by the way, also fits in with those dictionary descriptions I cited above.Gainsayers so far have only been trying to say that we are mistaken in our usage of the term 'instinctive', saying the word has only one correct application which is of a biological sciences origin, whilst I have been arguing that the term has as much validity from a linguistics standpoint. That is all.

And I have been saying that sub conscious is a better term. Sub Conscious will never catch on, it removes implied mystery and Romance from it all.

regards Jacko

[Stephen Georgiou]

The subject of what we call our method of shooting always causes discussions on the definition of terms.

I learnt to shoot a slingshot as a kid because I have an innate desire to hunt. The choice of weapon has not changed much slingshot or bow much the same to me.

Today I still hunt with both and know that I am driven by more than the much maligned term "Instinctive."

It is more than enjoyment, more than need, more than the desire to master the weapon/tool.

So you tell me what to call it if not instinctive?

The act of hunting drives the need to perfect the art or mastery of the weapon. Practice, whatever form it takes does nothing to reduce the instinctive nature of the quest but transforms the mystery of "why" into the knowing of "how."

SG

[Len]

My post will seem really lame compared to the well expressed thoughts before but here goes anyway. I was never told how to shoot a bow or how to aim, I just did. As a kid I saw a mate shooting in his back yard at a block of wood which he couldn't hit. I had a go and hit it nearly straight away, told my parents so they got me a simple straight fiberglass bow some arrows and I was away. I really learnt to shoot by hunting rabbits and it wasn't till twenty years later when I started going to trad comps and coming on this forum that I heard of terms such as gap shooters and instinctive archers. So for me maybe there was a learned response process going on but I feel there was an instictive ability to improve my aim to be able to hit rabbits and personally, the term instintive is a perfect term to describe how I shoot.

[Roadie]

I"m with Len,I made a bow and arrows as a kid,shot at most things,rabbits etc. I see i aim i shoot and sometimes i miss.Now as an Old Fella, I still do the same. I have no reason to analize one's self or shooting habits. I enjoy what I do shooting wise,and I am thankful that I still can after I was bitten by a DEATH ADDER a while back. And as the weather is warming up Snakes are on the move, Ive had to deal with 3 this month on the property. Cheers Roadie.

[Dennis La Varenne]

To all,

At the cost of repeating myself, it has never been my intention in starting this thread to disparage anybody who used a more deliberative conscious aiming method of shooting. There are very clear advantages to such a system in terms of pure repeatable accuracy and the ability to analyse shots and make conscious corrections to them. There is no doubting the advantage that confers to the user of such a system. I, as a rifleman, know this all too well.

Nor have I in any way tried to gainsay the very true principle that practice makes perfect, an offshoot of the principles outlined so often in this thread that the kind of shooting which we 'instinctive' shooters practice is not benefitted by repetition. Clearly, it does. That is never denied.

My theses throughout are that firstly, the trad archery use of the word 'instinctive' is properly and appropriately used in terms of any reasonable definition of the word as exampled by those quotes I used from Britannica, Oxford and Miriam Webster's dictionaries and that its use is not restricted to the very specific and narrow meaning with which the biological sciences use it, and secondly, that it is our right to use the term on grounds of a long existing tradition within archery and within common linguistic constraints to refer to the kind of unconscious non-deliberative fluid style of shooting which we practise by that term.

That this is so much of a concern to others who do not or cannot shoot this way is astonishing to me because not a whit of harm comes to anybody by us using the term. What seems to be the problem is that on the one hand some see our usage of the term as at least inaccurate and at worst a grave crime against science, or on the other as some kind of moral or intellectual outrage committed against their intelligence.

I was the first to say in my opening post that I did not learn the method by any unconscious means. My early learning was very deliberate and thought out, a consequence of my long interest in rifle shooting and exterior ballistics. But, eventually and not very long later, I began to notice that I could shoot quickly, fluidly and without any kind of deliberate thought concerning the shot from when I decided to draw an arrow from my quiver till the arrow struck the butt. Deciding to draw was the only conscious decision I made during the whole shooting sequence and remains so even today. At that time, I did not know it had any kind of name until I joined a club and began to shoot the ABA shoots.

That is when I became aware of the term 'instinctive shooting' being used to describe it. It was commonly understood by almost everyone back then. Some were good at it and others were not, but many if not most tried it. Gap shooting and other forms of deliberate aiming were just starting to come into the game back then and were far from common.

I have accepted that term since those days as part of the tradition of archery in the same way that we use the term nock, fletching, quiver, bracer, horns, brace height. Why then, all of a sudden has this term attracted so much acrimony??? If we lose our traditional language to describe what we do and how we do it, then we lose the culture surrounding traditional archery in just the same way that small language groups around the world lose their entire cultures when their languages die out or are stamped out. The language of any culture is its lifeblood and keeps it in existence.

Perry above points out that traditional archery is changing as it would have continued almost certainly if the compound had not been invented. One has only to look at the astonishing advances made in bow and arrow technology using traditional materials and the investigative and testing methods which science has given us. Read 'Target Archery' by Robert Elmer for an astoundingly detailed disposition on this evolution in archery. But, interestingly, he used all the known traditional archery terms of those times in his book and did not disdain one of them.

If, as Perry says, traditional archery is changing, by all accounts invent new terms to meet new materials applied to traditional forms of bow or new names for them where none exist before, but why throw out those we already have with perfectly appropriate meanings to their usage. Traditionalism within archery is not about change for its own sake. It is for preserving what we have as part of the culture we are part of. In so doing, we are saying that old forms of archery and their language which are our heritage have value within archery. If we arbitrarily decide to drop our traditional long established terminology, what then are we??? Certainly NOT traditional archers. I prefer to be a traditional archer, not just an archer. I believe in the cultural value of our heritage.

I am not part of the broader archery community. If the day comes when I am unable to shoot my traditional bows and arrows, I am not interested in shooting archery at all. There is no other branch of archery which interests me in the slightest, let alone the compound bow. The compound bow just doesn't do anything for me at all despite its obvious superior mechanical advantage over the traditional bow. I am a traditionalist at heart and even in my rifleshooting, I shoot old rifles often with open sights and am willing to practise with them until I am proficient. I like traditional stuff like old windup clocks, watche and so forth. That is the way I am.

What Perry regards as the Trad Police are just people like myself who see others (broadly speaking) who, by the death of a thousand cuts to our traditions, trying to undermine their value and reduce them to irrelevance. And so, I will always fight against unnecessary and pointless attempts to try to change or fix what is not broken in traditional archery, particularly its terminology.

For Perry,

Seriously? You have never experienced any myth or mystery in all the years you have been around Archery - WOW!

No, I haven't. Archery has always been a practical thing of trial and error and results obtained, which is a pretty scientific in approach. That of course doesn't preclude me having a historical interest in its origins and valuing those origins and the accompanying traditions. If there were no practical value to me in the practice of 'instinctive shooting' I would drop it tomorrow, but I would never deny its existence or decry its name.

[perry]

Dennis , continually thoughout this post each of us has made statements that have lead me to believe we have more in common than not, I've noticed it, have you? You seem to be focused on protecting yourself and highlight the differences we have You are overanilizing what I say or distorting it by pulling quotes out of a sentence then questioning the context I'm a simple man, read my posts this way. They are my thoughts which I am hardwired for - It is in my Genes to question the establishment It seems to be in your Genes to accept "what has been" in the Establishment . I am also known to **** stir occasionly / often

I don't know what you know of me but I've been making primitive bows and arrows since the early 90's. Been shooting a bow for over 30 years. I did shoot a Compound in my teens but hunted with a Recurve since the mid 80's. I now own and proudly shoot several ILF bows, Barebow. I prefer late 19th century Firearms, particularly Lever Rifles and when the kids are grown will buy a 1874 Sharps replica in 45.90 or 45.110 I love to shoot with open sights. I believe that the answers to nearly all lifes questions and all lifes lessons are buried in the past. One should never lose sight of it. We also live in 2010.

Trad Archery is already regarded as elitest and protectionest by a surprising number of Archers - this is not a good state of affairs. No one has the right to create this air around it. Surprisingly some that feel excluded also shoot Trad bows. Most do also shoot synthetic arrows and can not understand why they can't shoot arrows made from a material that many folks accept and use in their Bows. Most only want to join in with their mates and could not give a toss about the competition. I understand both sides and believe me have interests in both camps.

Not once have I decried "Instinctive" Archery or denied that what you call Instinctive exists. I have called it Subconscious shooting. I think our shooting styles have much in common. Lets kill this thread now and agree to disagree :)You may have the last word I'm moving on

regards Jacko

ps - Subconscious not Instinctive

[Dennis La Varenne]

Perry,

I do try not to take quotes out of context if I can see a context. That would be unfair to the author. I only picked them because they read to me as a stand-alone comment or summary of what went before. It is never my intention to deliberately misquote anybody including you.

One the completely different subject of elitism, and I am speaking very generally here, this is only a bad thing if it is discriminatory or exclusive in a negative sense of trying to keep people out. In the end, elitism is all about excellence or maintaining the highest possible standards. Unhappily, Australians suffer the tall poppy syndrome very badly and want everything dumbed down to the lowest common level so very often. This tall poppy thing is most often used when someone cannot 'make the grade' and wants to join the group without having to work for it.

It has become prodigiously apparent to me in the way in which traditional archery and its values are being undermined from within the group. To me it appears that if people cannot do it the hard way, they want it changed to make it easier rather than discipline themselves to the task.

Simply asking people to maintain an acceptable standard within the values of a discipline is never a bad thing, nor is reaching lower levels for lack of ability so long as one tries one's best. To try to change things simply because of inconvenience is a pretty poor reason for throwing out a tradition or undermining it, and that is what is happening. If people want to shoot very easy to use bows with all manner of mechanical advantages, let them. But don't try to pretend it is traditional archery or try to hitch a ride on that cart on a the pretext of a mere technicality of terminology.

What we are encountering these days throughout society is often the valueless culture of the handout mentality where people consider that they do not have to demonstrate any kind of qualification or accountability just because they suck air, and think they have a right to it. This lack of respect for tradition is an enormous part of that culture.

The problem of traditional archery in today's world is that it requires its people to give something up, and that something is convenience. I suggest that THAT is what galls so many.

But, thank you for your input, Perry. I have enjoyed the debate. It may not seem that way, but it has required me to question very many of my views, but I am still not persuaded by the counter arguments.

In the end, my original question has still not had much of a reply - that is - how do instinctive shooters actually shoot - except in a couple of instances and it would be nice if there were a few more in that vein.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Evening all,

I have just been reflecting on all the foregoing posts and went to have a look in my Oxford Illustrated and Merriam Webster Dictionaries for their explanations of the meaning of Instinct/Instinctive, and this is what they have to say -

Oxford Illustrated Dictionary -
instinct n, Innate propensity to certain seemingly rational acts performed without conscious design; innate impulse; intuition, unconscious skill; (zoology) inborn and usually rigid pattern of behaviour in animals, often in response to certain simple stimuli.
instinctive adj. instinctively adv.

Merriam Webster 3rd International Unabridged Edition –
instinct, n –s [ME, fr L instinctus, fr. instinctus (past participle)] 1. obsolete: instigation, impulse 2: A natural or inherent aptitude, tendency, impulse or capacity (an ~ for the right word) (his ~ toward success) (the religious ~s of primitive peoples) 3 a: complex and specific response on the part of an organism to environmental stimuli the is largely hereditary and unalterable though the pattern of behaviour through which it is expressed may be modified by learning, that does not involve reason, and that has as its goal the removal of a somatic tension or excitation 3 b: behaviour that is mediated by reactions (such as reflex arcs) below the conscious level – usually not used technically.
instinct, adj 1 obsolete: implanted by nature: innate 2 obsolete: impelled by an inner or animating or exciting agency 3: profoundly imbued: filled, charged – usually used post positively and with with (a spirit ~ with human kindness) (~ with patriotism).
instinct, vt 1 obsolete: instigate, impel 2 obsolete: to implant as an animating power.

Obviously, the meanings of instinct and its adjective abound and all are correct. Clearly there is room for its appropriate use in archery

[Chase N. Nocks]

apologise for not responding earlier as my internet at home has been unreliable or non existent and it is very difficult during the working day. I have been most keen to respond to this and the last couple of Dennis' posts.

The human brain is a truly amazing thing. It is capable of incredible feats. However the brain doesn’t function like most people think it does. We all have one, but we don’t all know how it works.

I agree Mick. It is capable of incredible feats including incredible tricks and charades. Certainly the two most complex machines that we are currently aware of are the human brain and the universe itself. There are some interesting theological arguments linking these two...but that's not for now. I'll lay no claim other than an interested and casual reader about the brain and universe.

It came as a shock to me to discover that the little voice that talks inside my head isn’t really me. Yes, it is my conscious brain, but the real ‘me’ is to found deeper down. The real me doesn’t actually speak. It’s a part of my brain where my basic likes and dislikes are to be found. It’s the real control room. It’s the place where the real decisions are made. It’s the place where the real me dwells. It’s known as the sub-conscious.

Yes there is something happening where some decision is made or a series of inferences are signed off on. In the case of shooting a bow, there is a parcel or parcels of information coming it's (the brains) way that it needs to categorize....sometimes very fast and not always infallability. Interesting you say it is the real you and probably not a bad call. I am assuming that you are referring to it, the subconscious, as being something other than Mind/Soul which I have seen confused many times.

Sure, it all sounds like pure BS, yet it has been proven to be true. Our conscience brain is totally incapable of making any decisions instantly. It must first confer with the sub-conscious. Scientists have conducted experiments where subjects have been ‘wired up’ to measure their electrical brain activity. They have then been asked simple questions where the answer is either a yes or a no. Amazingly, the scientists were able to see what the answer was going to be, seconds before the individual even knew what it was going to be. The decision was being made in the sub-conscious and it was the electrical activity in this part of the brain that was being measured. The answer was still being transmitted to the conscious.

Nope, doesn't sound like BS. The conscious brain is the collector of information. There is a jigsaw puzzle of information that we have to make sense of, that we need to form a picture from. I think that is why visualizing is so important to success...and every shot you have ever taken is a accessable collarge of images but rather than a wall of images it is every image super-imposed one over the other and common features are chosen. BTW I am not being visual specific but include such input as wind direction, angle of the sun etc etc

I think that the subconscious excells as a patternic identifier. That's probably a made up word. But I am talking about pattern recognition = disambiguation.

The conscious brain is great for deliberating over a longer time frame. It also acts in an advisory role to the sub-conscious brain. Many of the higher functions that we humans are capable of are performed in our conscious brain, but these functions are always subservient to our true selves, the sub-conscious.

Yes I can see that the subconsious gives our identities their particular flavour, discriminations and efficiencies. But it is not in my opinion a system in isolation nor preformed as an ability or function. I think it is a function that becomes more able. Like abstraction. At Sea World my 2 year old looked at a collection of rocks in a enclosure and told me that it was a '"cano" (Volcano). Something he had only seen in a cartoon. Images and associations at work.

What does this have to do with archery, you might ask? Well quite a lot, in my opinion. When we are faced with performing complicated tasks, it’s our conscious brain that’s initially given to role to sort it out and then relay its findings to the sub-conscious for approval. This is why beginners are so inept. Every action must be worked out and every action must be totally analysed by both the conscious and sub-conscious before and during its execution.
Once we become proficient, it’s because our sub-conscious has almost fully taken over the proceedings. How often have you heard the phrase uttered after a miss, “I thought too much about that shot”? By consciously thinking about any physical activity, you must then contend with the time delays between the two parts of our brains. This time delay completely upsets any fluidity and poise of any action.

This is exactly why beginners are so inept. The accessible resevoir of experience is limited...not missing or absent...limited. For instance a beginner may not know how to put that arrow into the "A" zone at 30 metres but for the general population they have the basics of holding tools, curling the fingers on one hand independently to the other, pointing and aiming as a concept etc etc. My son's introduction to archery at 3 y.o. will I'm sure be far more clumsy than mine was at 15. I also expect he will reach a unconscious level of competency faster than I did (with the bow). It will be effortless, second nature. Varied competency needs to be built upon by doing varied tasks.

I agree completely with the last two sentences in the above paragraph.

Unfortunately, the sub-conscious doesn’t appear to be very bright, well not mine anyway. It’s functions have more to do with basic likes and dislikes and such. It doesn’t seem to have much power to rationalise problems. This is why we have the weird condition commonly known as ‘target panic’. Our fluid sub-conscious has developed a ‘short circuit’ where, once we have our ‘sight picture’ in mind, the ‘trigger’ to shoot is ordered. The sub-conscious doesn’t particularly care about the conscious brains protest saying that you’re still only at half draw. The command to shoot is all over riding. The primitive old sub-conscious has to be retrained like some pet dog to do the process correctly, with the conscious brain delicately taking on the responsibility of the training process, but only it’s only an advisory role though.

I don't think it ever needed to be very bright, just smart enough. I think it has it's roots with animals and times when total committment is needed, therefore I think of it as being a rather primative faculty. Flight or fight being the most fundamental. Do not read primative as unrefined. It has been refined and tested over eons.

So, is instinctive shooting really instinctive? To my mind good shooting has to be, as the sub-conscious is in total control and another term that could well describe our sub-conscious is our ’instinct’, in much the same manner as animals are often described as doing things by instinct. You see, the main thing that separates us from most animals is our high functioning conscious brain. All animals have a sub-conscious brain that’s not all that dissimilar to our own.

I very closely agree with most of what you have said Mick. I have thought of it from this angle previously but you have added a little subtly that I will think on some more.

I think of the subconscious as being part of our arsenal of survival tools. It gets the legs pumping while in close proximity to a grizzly so the technical analysis out how we got into that situation can be made later at our leisure. And even though we use it instinctively, it is of itself, not instinctive. Skills and activities are learned, at least for us humans, most are. Again I agree completely with the last two sentences above.

Thanks Mick