Learning Multiple Techs. Diminishes Reaction Time?

[NTDeveloper]

An article entitled "The Anatomy of Fear and How it Relates to Survival Skills Training" obtained from the Personal Protection Systems website - www.personalprotectionsystems.ca - states the following:

·[font=&quot] [/font]Hicks Law basically states the following: the average reaction time given one stimulus one response is about ½ second. If we now teach a student a second technique (response) to the same attack (stimulus) we WILL increase a person’s reaction time by 58%. On the street we want to DECREASE reaction time, not increase it. If we teach multiple defences to one specific attack, the brain will take time deciding which option to use. This increased reaction time could mean the difference between life and death.


​

Obviously, this conflicts with the structure of Kenpo in the sense that there are literally scores of defenses against particular attacks. If Kenpo is effective, and I believe it is, then the above paragraph does not reconcile with reality. On the other hand, the general thrust of the paragraph makes sense. When faced with an attack, how *does* the Kenpoist decide which technique to use given all of the choices? Is this "choice" made an in an involuntary fashion because of all the training...but which technique "decides" to kick in given that several techniques may exist for a given situation?
​

​

 

[Blindside]

There are a couple of schools of thought on this, but here is mine.

All of those techniques are simply examples of what you CAN do, and they certainly don't encompass all possibilities. If you were to look at an oncoming punch and had to consciously decide if you were going to do tech A, B, C, or D, you would run into the quandry that Hick's Law presents. I would argue that Hicks Law addresses conscious decisions, not subconscious ones, and that you have to drill your reactions to the subconscious level to eliminate this problem.

Now look at that punch again you basically only have two decisions. You have a choice to go either forward or backward, and whether to go inside or outside of the incoming punch. As I said before the techs are examples of what you can do when you get to one of those quadrants. An example of forward-outside might be Flashing Wings; forward-inside: Five Swords; backward-outside: Leap of Death, backward-inside: Delayed Sword. This type of thinking reduces all of your (30+) punch techniques to essentially four choices, and those choices need to be drilled to the subconscious level. For me, the most dangerous part of the tech is the entrance, all the multitude of things that you can do from there is pure gravy.

Lamont

Lamont

 

[pete]

a certain kenpo lord once told me there are 2 factors that determines your technique... environment and target availability.

so would you do attacking mace if your back is against a wall or a car? no, can't step back, so you step up and it becomes sleeper... but wait, the guys left hand is up high blocking your target... so you go low and it becomes thundering hammers or you find yourself in real close and go with a closer range weapon in flashing wing... but aren't they all outside defenses against a step through right punch?

the initial reaction should not be diminished by what follows...

pete

 

[MJS]

Pete brought up some very good points! Another thing to keep in mind, is that while we learn many different techs., we need to remember that ultimately, we want to get to the point where we are not thinking about a tech., but just reacting to what is thrown.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

If you want to get deep into the issue of Hicks Law and OODA look through this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20459&page=1&pp=15

 

[Doc]

An article entitled "The Anatomy of Fear and How it Relates to Survival Skills Training" obtained from the Personal Protection Systems website - www.personalprotectionsystems.ca - states the following:

·[font=&quot] [/font]Hicks Law basically states the following: the average reaction time given one stimulus one response is about ½ second. If we now teach a student a second technique (response) to the same attack (stimulus) we WILL increase a person’s reaction time by 58%. On the street we want to DECREASE reaction time, not increase it. If we teach multiple defences to one specific attack, the brain will take time deciding which option to use. This increased reaction time could mean the difference between life and death.


​

Obviously, this conflicts with the structure of Kenpo in the sense that there are literally scores of defenses against particular attacks. If Kenpo is effective, and I believe it is, then the above paragraph does not reconcile with reality. On the other hand, the general thrust of the paragraph makes sense. When faced with an attack, how *does* the Kenpoist decide which technique to use given all of the choices? Is this "choice" made an in an involuntary fashion because of all the training...but which technique "decides" to kick in given that several techniques may exist for a given situation?
​

​

"Hicks Law" is from the 1950's. "Rhoades Law" of 1959, or "Larish and Stelmach" in 1982 established that one could select from 20 complex options in 340 milliseconds, providing the complex choices have been previously trained. "Mowbray" and or the "Welford Law" of 1986, found no difference in reaction time at all, when selecting from numerous, well-trained choices.

Obviously, training makes a considerable difference. People, tests and testing equipment are different. Every person and the skills they perform in tests vary, so reaction times vary. Even the devices themselves used for testing take time to register a responce. Results become vague and actually documenting milliseconds in the 1950s was nearly impossible even under the best of circumstances.

A great amount of time has passed since "Hicks Law," and modern methods have been designed to decrease "Simple Reaction Time." "Sequential Learning" strings tasks that work together like sequential notes in music, and actually reduce reaction time as well..

Parker recognized this in his motion based Kenpo and actually considered and discussed this in its creation. (Those who regularly glean Infinite Insights will find it there). Because it is "conceptually based" (despite some protests) it actually speeds the learning process considerably. When used in self defense training students by design must make simple "either/or conceptual decisions first” as opposed to sophistcated hand, foot, or body decisions as some might suggest. In Parker's Conceptual Motion premise of learning, the student doesn't waste time selecting "specific" responses, but instead after making the either/or decision, simply begins a "processed and learned response" of a group of movements that allows the "well-trained" body to follow paths learned from repetition training. This is exactly as Ed Parker described the motion process of learning.

Although Parker's conceptual methodology is not without limitations, it does allow quick response to external stymuli to be learned rather quickly and in some circumstances can be effective in basic survival just as Parker designed it.

The funny thing is how some "kenpo" instructors have decided to "dumb down" Ed Parker's commercial product even more to even simpler conceptual options. This is done under the guise of "making it simpler for the student," when in reality it is about making it easier for instructors to award ranks and collect fees from unconventional teaching methodologies. Making the commercial even more commercial is more what they are doing. Now, in addition to the flood of commercial black belts running around promoting others, themselves, and creating "new" arts, we got the "dumb and dumber" doing the same in an ever descending downward spiral of credibility to our art and its effectiveness.

Other so called modern self defense instructors ignore more recent research and use out dated ideas as "Hicks Law" to justify their "keep it simple stupid" approach. What they need to do is examine the science since "Hicks" which clearly demonstrates proper training improves response time, and not use old studies as an excuse to make, making money, easier.

But, to answer your question, Ed Parker's commercial vehicle is a long way from the other end of the scale and "Hock's Law" of "Hyper-Vigilance." A decent instructor can and will make the material reasonably effective against blunt trauma assaults.

 

[distalero]

I have a question: isn't there a corollary here? Namely, the gap that most of us experienced between techniques and sparring? In other words the inability to react with techniques to attacking fists and feet? I know for some (just a few in my experience) there never was much of a gap, but for many there is, or was, and the reason may not be that they're usually taught separately; or maybe it IS because they usually are? Anyhow, I can't help but think there's an association worth exploring here.

 

[Doc]

I have a question: isn't there a corollary here? Namely, the gap that most of us experienced between techniques and sparring? In other words the inability to react with techniques to attacking fists and feet? I know for some (just a few in my experience) there never was much of a gap, but for many there is, or was, and the reason may not be that they're usually taught separately; or maybe it IS because they usually are? Anyhow, I can't help but think there's an association worth exploring here.

Look at the teachers who are ultimately responsible. More bad than good, and few great, and even fewer really knowledgeable. But all things are relative when you don't know, what you don't know.

 

[distalero]

I think what I was sorta shooting at was that Kenpo teachs TWO sets, or catagories of responses (or did in my day, anyhow), which would be: Techniques, that sort of imply an attack moving in towards an at least momentarily stationary position; and Sparring, with it's techniques more or less distinct from those of the first set (sometimes only presented as sparring "tips") and which from the beginning allow both parties to move in on the offensive, to clash. It was (again, in my day) the student's eventual challenge, to bring the two together as best you could. Has AK come up with some intermediate practice, or strategy, that does this better than just trial and error? Otherwise, would this fact potentially cause a slowed reaction time? Or is one purpose of techniques to allow the attacked to do 'something' until you can get into gear, ie the sparring/clashing mode? I hope to learn a little, here.

 

[loki09789]

Obviously, this conflicts with the structure of Kenpo in the sense that there are literally scores of defenses against particular attacks. If Kenpo is effective, and I believe it is, then the above paragraph does not reconcile with reality.​

I don't think that this conflicts with Kenpo in the least. Most of the scores of techniques are really just variations on a theme that is established at early stages of training. They all follow the same basic 'spine' of techniques and simply vary where they end up.

So, in reality, what you are training in Kenpo is the variety of possibilities that you may find yourself in given the different positions, attacks, reactions and such that the environment and opponents will give you. In other words, adaptability is the focus.

The study is very true but in a matter of milliseconds not huge amounts of time.

 

[Ray]

Reducing the number of techniques we master because of Hick's law reminds me of the adage: If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

It may be true that reaction time might be diminished by learning multiple techniques. I'll have to give the article a very good read.

More than just "learning" a technique; we should practice them until they're automatic responses. There are drills that help us with response time: we used a "circle" with one student in the center and the rest of the class making the circle. The lone student would be attacked (ususually not simultaneously) with a punch, kick and a grab (any order, any angle, any target)...the idea being to respond effectively. Other schools might use a "hall" of people (people in two lines with a student in between). And we can keep the techniques fresh by trying different "what if's" etc.

Additionally, some techniques are similar to each other and/or contain the same key movements. In my (poorly developed) mind this should help our reaction time.

Then again, didn't Parker say "Action beats reaction every time" ?

 

[loki09789]

Reducing the number of techniques we master because of Hick's law reminds me of the adage: If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

It may be true that reaction time might be diminished by learning multiple techniques. I'll have to give the article a very good read.

More than just "learning" a technique; we should practice them until they're automatic responses. There are drills that help us with response time: we used a "circle" with one student in the center and the rest of the class making the circle. The lone student would be attacked (ususually not simultaneously) with a punch, kick and a grab (any order, any angle, any target)...the idea being to respond effectively. Other schools might use a "hall" of people (people in two lines with a student in between). And we can keep the techniques fresh by trying different "what if's" etc.

Additionally, some techniques are similar to each other and/or contain the same key movements. In my (poorly developed) mind this should help our reaction time.

Then again, didn't Parker say "Action beats reaction every time" ?

In training you consciously think about technique: form/power/focus/speed....

In reality you consciously think about your goals: Stop the attack, find an escape route, get to the door..... the shift from 'artistic' to 'tactical' focus allows the 'Hick's Law' idea to work in your favor.

If your thinking about a specific sidekick, wrist grab escape....in the middle of the real deal, your NOT focusing on the task at hand or the Bad Guy.