Abuse of Hick's Law
Moderator: Available
Abuse of Hick's Law
I keep seeing use of "Hick's Law" used in self defense articles and discussions and it's always bothered me as Hick's, as presented by many self defense experts, never really fit with the reality I experienced. You see Hick's doesn't have anything to do with self defense, hand gunning, martial arts or even computers at all; it does have to do with untrained people pushing buttons next to lights (think of the electronic game Simon).
Here's some reading that may help others understand this much abused "law"...
Hock on Hick
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Not relevant for design
Martial arts related opnion
Web design on Fitt's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27_law
Here's some reading that may help others understand this much abused "law"...
Hock on Hick
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Not relevant for design
Martial arts related opnion
Web design on Fitt's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27_law
I was dreaming of the past...
- Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I think we've discussed this before, Mike. But I believe you are spot on.
Many folks for instance have used descriptions of blood flow distribution in the body during extreme neuro-hormonal (sympathetic) stimulation to argue against the Uechi style with its techniques like shokens, boshikens, and hirakens. We don't have strength in our extremities when we're facing the Grim Reaper, right? Well... tell that to forensic pathologists who routinely look for tissue samples under the fingernails of murder victims. The tiger doesn't come out when meeting our maker? This makes no sense even to the untrained human animal. It makes no sense to the monkey who holds on to a branch for dear life in the tree when the predator is chasing it.
The relevant point of Hick's Law in self defense is more metaphor than science. A conscious decision point with more options means more time to make a decision. However that simplistic controlled lab environment paradigm doesn't fit in with the reality of interfacing with the real world.
In the real world of self-defense, we must be like the tea in the teacup. Why? Because chaos theory teaches us that the world is often nonlinear and nonlinear systems can be 100% unpredictable under certain conditions. And we train to do so until that adaptability becomes an unconscious (mushin) process. So a simple set of principles of movement that can adapt ever so slightly to any number of situations sort of makes the whole Hick's Law seem irrelevant to the self-defense problem.
Or so says Bill...
Science is good. Bad application of science is neither enlightening nor a good thing.
- Bill
Many folks for instance have used descriptions of blood flow distribution in the body during extreme neuro-hormonal (sympathetic) stimulation to argue against the Uechi style with its techniques like shokens, boshikens, and hirakens. We don't have strength in our extremities when we're facing the Grim Reaper, right? Well... tell that to forensic pathologists who routinely look for tissue samples under the fingernails of murder victims. The tiger doesn't come out when meeting our maker? This makes no sense even to the untrained human animal. It makes no sense to the monkey who holds on to a branch for dear life in the tree when the predator is chasing it.
The relevant point of Hick's Law in self defense is more metaphor than science. A conscious decision point with more options means more time to make a decision. However that simplistic controlled lab environment paradigm doesn't fit in with the reality of interfacing with the real world.
In the real world of self-defense, we must be like the tea in the teacup. Why? Because chaos theory teaches us that the world is often nonlinear and nonlinear systems can be 100% unpredictable under certain conditions. And we train to do so until that adaptability becomes an unconscious (mushin) process. So a simple set of principles of movement that can adapt ever so slightly to any number of situations sort of makes the whole Hick's Law seem irrelevant to the self-defense problem.
Or so says Bill...
Science is good. Bad application of science is neither enlightening nor a good thing.
- Bill
The more I train and the older I get, the more my idea of fighting becomes "train the most basic underlying principles, and then just start breaking things."
If you train "move X goes to point Y during situation Z, and variant move X(2) goes to point W during situation Gamma Delta, roger that Tango Bravo" then Hick's Law applies.
If you train "move X goes to point Y during situation Z, and variant move X(2) goes to point W during situation Gamma Delta, roger that Tango Bravo" then Hick's Law applies.
But who here is training that way after X number of years? And if they are then it would have to be almost intentional on the part of both the student and the instructor to train to that goal.TSDguy wrote:The more I train and the older I get, the more my idea of fighting becomes "train the most basic underlying principles, and then just start breaking things."
If you train "move X goes to point Y during situation Z, and variant move X(2) goes to point W during situation Gamma Delta, roger that Tango Bravo" then Hick's Law applies.
As Bill stated the obvious in a very clear way...
A conscious decision point with more options means more time to make a decision.
Glasheen's Law sounds cool.
Another thing that I've noticed is that those who are able to successfully use a principles based approach have usually applied those principles the most either in real life or at least training. After all, you still have to think of which principle to apply and that still takes experience and practice. So it seems that proper training can trump Hick most every time.
I was dreaming of the past...
- JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
Think of which principle to apply in training. (You doing the art)MikeK wrote: As Bill stated the obvious in a very clear way...
A conscious decision point with more options means more time to make a decision.
Glasheen's Law sounds cool.
Another thing that I've noticed is that those who are able to successfully use a principles based approach have usually applied those principles the most either in real life or at least training. After all, you still have to think of which principle to apply and that still takes experience and practice. So it seems that proper training can trump Hick most every time.
When applying 'think' of nothing... (The art doing you)
In my training the main concept is supported by a few sub concepts, but in the end, all the moves are different expressions of the same concept.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
I think we're saying the same thing here, but I don't think MOST schools train this way. Understanding the basic principle vs. training specific situations. Principle is better.MikeK wrote:But who here is training that way after X number of years? And if they are then it would have to be almost intentional on the part of both the student and the instructor to train to that goal.
As Bill stated the obvious in a very clear way...
A conscious decision point with more options means more time to make a decision.
Glasheen's Law sounds cool.
Again, I agree and think we're on the same wavelength. A simple example is telling a student to only use bobbing and weaving to defend in sparring. They quickly learn where and when it works and where and when it doesn't. The principle is absorbed. You can learn (and most schools do initially teach) to weave during a left hook punch, but that doesn't make it universal.Another thing that I've noticed is that those who are able to successfully use a principles based approach have usually applied those principles the most either in real life or at least training. After all, you still have to think of which principle to apply and that still takes experience and practice. So it seems that proper training can trump Hick most every time.
- JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
What is the *principle* in use here?TSDguy wrote: A simple example is telling a student to only use bobbing and weaving to defend in sparring. They quickly learn where and when it works and where and when it doesn't. The principle is absorbed.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
I think we're on the same page TSDguy, and Jim too.
What gets me is how we in the martial arts have latched onto certain ideas without really poking them to see if they are indeed valid or relevant to what we do, (aka Bill's "sniff test"). Should we teach our students to be a little skeptical and even to poke and sniff even what we teach?
(BTW, This problem is not restricted to martial artists.)
What gets me is how we in the martial arts have latched onto certain ideas without really poking them to see if they are indeed valid or relevant to what we do, (aka Bill's "sniff test"). Should we teach our students to be a little skeptical and even to poke and sniff even what we teach?
(BTW, This problem is not restricted to martial artists.)
I was dreaming of the past...
- Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I'm glad The Discovery Channel shined the disinfecting light of day on this "no touch" practice.Van Canna wrote:
So where does a 'no touch' KO fit in with Hick's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_qg5d1YGI
It didn't work because he was a nonbeliever, says Mr. Dillman. Yep... That about explains it. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Pay no attention to the toe and tongue explanations. It is chafe amidst the the wheat. Keep your eye on the ball.
- Manny RamirezI see the ball.
- Bill
- Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
From a defensive-only perspective, you are getting off the line of force. Generally this approach is superior to "blocking."JimHawkins wrote:What is the *principle* in use here?TSDguy wrote:
A simple example is telling a student to only use bobbing and weaving to defend in sparring. They quickly learn where and when it works and where and when it doesn't. The principle is absorbed.
Some ways of doing this are better than others.
- Bill
The application of Hick's law that I use is what i call the "Brown Belt Syndrome", where someone knows so many cool ways to win that he gets his ass kicked while trying to make the best decision.
For every story about a blackbelt who got hammered, there are at least two about a student with only one lesson who knew one thing and used it successfully. In an assault, most of the beatings happen during the Orient and Decide steps of the OODA loop. Beginners with only one choice lose almost no time in the Decision process. They also don't have a tendency to over-think the Orient step. They know they are taking damage and that is really the only relevant point of information. Someone with more skill often wants to know in what way they are taking damage, to help them better Decide.
It takes a fair amount of skill to not deal with an attack with a conscious process. If you can, you can significantly streamline your OODA loop. It is also common for a real assault to be different enough from anything trained to bring a powerful cognitive dissonance element into the equation and almost everyone (excepting things that were finished at the immediate first operant conditioning level I can't think of a counter example) tries to resolve the cognitive dissonance... well, cognitively. That's slow and rarely works in time.
Rory
For every story about a blackbelt who got hammered, there are at least two about a student with only one lesson who knew one thing and used it successfully. In an assault, most of the beatings happen during the Orient and Decide steps of the OODA loop. Beginners with only one choice lose almost no time in the Decision process. They also don't have a tendency to over-think the Orient step. They know they are taking damage and that is really the only relevant point of information. Someone with more skill often wants to know in what way they are taking damage, to help them better Decide.
It takes a fair amount of skill to not deal with an attack with a conscious process. If you can, you can significantly streamline your OODA loop. It is also common for a real assault to be different enough from anything trained to bring a powerful cognitive dissonance element into the equation and almost everyone (excepting things that were finished at the immediate first operant conditioning level I can't think of a counter example) tries to resolve the cognitive dissonance... well, cognitively. That's slow and rarely works in time.
Rory
I don't think knowing so many ways to win is a bad thing or even gets in the way. The problem is more thinking about each way to win and trying to decide exactly how they want to win rather than dealing with what they're faced with in the here and now. I would even dare to say that the brown belt was trained to look for something cool rather than respond efficiently because that is what is expected of him in class. After all humans have many unrelated techniques in their day to day toolbox and seem to be able to almost instantly sift through them and naturally pick something that is appropriate to a given situation.RA Miller wrote:The application of Hick's law that I use is what i call the "Brown Belt Syndrome", where someone knows so many cool ways to win that he gets his ass kicked while trying to make the best decision.
Could be, but if we are trying to use science to prove something then the data has to be repeatable and confirmed. We really can't rely on unsubstantiated stories to prove or disprove something applies to a law. This is part of the problem I think we face when trying to apply Hicks, or Fitts or GOMS to what we do. We use science but don't play by it's rules to verify that we're correct.RA Miller wrote:For every story about a blackbelt who got hammered, there are at least two about a student with only one lesson who knew one thing and used it successfully.
I've also experienced beginners, myself included, responding quickly while taking a beating and utterly failing because their one choice was the wrong one for the situation.RA Miller wrote: In an assault, most of the beatings happen during the Orient and Decide steps of the OODA loop. Beginners with only one choice lose almost no time in the Decision process. They also don't have a tendency to over-think the Orient step. They know they are taking damage and that is really the only relevant point of information. Someone with more skill often wants to know in what way they are taking damage, to help them better Decide.
And once again I think "Someone with more skill often wants to know in what way they are taking damage, to help them better Decide." is more about that someone has been trained to look at what they do as a laundry list for advancement instead of a way to achieve a result.
I agree and this should be the goal of any training, though in the polite world we still need some consciousness in the process in order not to over react.RA Miller wrote:It takes a fair amount of skill to not deal with an attack with a conscious process. If you can, you can significantly streamline your OODA loop.
Once again I have to think that this is a training issue. Many times we are taught that a fight is between two individuals who will somehow square off with the bad guy attacking first using certain techniques. What if a person gains more awareness of what an assault can be, starts to recognize certain ques and clues, and short cuts the process.RA Miller wrote: It is also common for a real assault to be different enough from anything trained to bring a powerful cognitive dissonance element into the equation and almost everyone (excepting things that were finished at the immediate first operant conditioning level I can't think of a counter example) tries to resolve the cognitive dissonance... well, cognitively. That's slow and rarely works in time.
Rory
Load up and start shooting some holes in my beer induced ideas.
I was dreaming of the past...
- JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
I agree there would need to be some studies..
But in general I think one needs a common thread that connects all things within the art and provides contexts in training..
Mainly all WCK trains to do is bash the crap out of the opponent in conjunction with structure destruction. That is essentially what all the techs are for--taking the line--except with different position or energy contexts that fit along that common thread.
The "Brown Belt" may well be faced with too many choices but it remains to be seen if any of them are valid or interconnected.
Depending on the phase and type of combat there should generally be no conscious thought process going on when 'in the fight'.
In the end the idea that the intent of an art is anything or is many different things, as opposed to a specific method/strategy/specialization IMO does contribute to the Brown Belt thing and does violate Hick's Law.
But in general I think one needs a common thread that connects all things within the art and provides contexts in training..
Mainly all WCK trains to do is bash the crap out of the opponent in conjunction with structure destruction. That is essentially what all the techs are for--taking the line--except with different position or energy contexts that fit along that common thread.
The "Brown Belt" may well be faced with too many choices but it remains to be seen if any of them are valid or interconnected.
Depending on the phase and type of combat there should generally be no conscious thought process going on when 'in the fight'.
In the end the idea that the intent of an art is anything or is many different things, as opposed to a specific method/strategy/specialization IMO does contribute to the Brown Belt thing and does violate Hick's Law.
Last edited by JimHawkins on Tue May 06, 2008 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Once again I have to think that this is a training issue. Many times we are taught that a fight is between two individuals who will somehow square off with the bad guy attacking first using certain techniques. What if a person gains more awareness of what an assault can be, starts to recognize certain ques and clues, and short cuts the process.
Amen The real skill in martial arts...like what we see demonstrated in the Samurai movie.
If you don't see it coming, you must 'sense' it coming.
Van