Field sense - How we get the edge

[bikemike]

Just read an interesting article on Wired, which talks about 'field sense' and I reckon it has aspects that apply to us lot.

It's about what experts do differently to novices in highly complex superficially unpredictable spacial environments. How do they get the edge? Or in our terms, how do we survive?

The context is Ice Hockey and Tennis in particular, and sports in general but it clearly has relevance to road skills.

Reflex speed is not the key factor in returning a serve. "People have tested casual players and experts, and their reaction times are essentially the same

That stuff that surviving riders learn, that road sense, the uncanny ability to know what's going to happen next is the same as field sense as discussed here, in so far as I can tell. What's interesting is that they are looking at how to teach it.

Read the article here.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-06/ff_mindgames

[90s]

I think you are spot on. Great find btw.
I remember a Jeremy Clarkeson programme where he tested this. He tested his reflexes against Micheal Schumacher and (I think) Tim Henman. They were all the same. But when it came to the practical stuff it was all about thinking more quickly - subconsciously through experience and knack.
There's a thing in birdwatching called (seriously) jizz (no snickering there at the back). Basically it means that an experienced birder can see a bird out the corner of their eye flying by and without thinking recognise the bird. Its like a feel. You just know.
The same can be true for traffic patterns, the way cars drive etc that an experienced rider somehow knows what will happen next. After 20 yrs + commuting and lanesplitting I have this a little. This morning on SH16 something about the way the traffic was moving made me filter in with the traffic, whilst a GN250 flew by lansplitting. Somehow I could sense something odd, and although nothing turned out bad you at least learn to trust this stuff to be safe.

[Grahameeboy]

There is more to us than science can understand eh?

But being passed by a GN250 mate...............

I can often sense that a car in front is going to change direction...weird or once I decided not to overtake, despite there being miles ahead and a cop car loomed.....

[vifferman]

I didn't read the article, but I (instinctively) know what it's talking about.:shifty:
Daily commuting in the Wilds of D'Auckland's traffic soon gets you either dead or schooled up on a whole bunch of little things you notice or do without conscious effort, like knowing when someone's going to change lanes, even though they don't indicate, by the subtle body movements, changes in vehicle speed, etc. It's probably some inbuilt survival/hunter mechanism for gathering info about your environment, dangers, etc.

Sometimes though, you get hornswaggled by erroneous or missing signals, like furriners who don't drive in a normal (or in D'Aucklanders' cases) abnormal way, or who do something you interpret as an "about to", when the driver's just being a fucktard.
Or you pick up the signal, and don't act on it or ignore your intuition.

That latter thing happened to me when I wrote off my last VFR - I came up behind a car, didn't think he'd seen me (windows were fogged up, and he didn't pull over). My first instinct was to tootle him vigorously (normally I'd start with melodiously, but he was driving an Audi), but a second later, he pulled into the kerb/curb/cerb/kurb/krb, so I wnet "Aha!! Forsooth! Behold!! The phrkr's seen me!", and commenced to overtake with vigour and enthusiasm. But no; he was just a RoutineRiddenPhktrd, and was doing his MorningThing:
Pull out from side of road.
Adjust willy.
Take a swig of coffee.
Pull into kerb/curb/cerb/kurb/krb, and wonder about correct spelling.
Turn on shaver.
Crack a u-turn.
Confirminate (just to let other road user's know that "As a matter of fact, I DO own the road, and I MEANT to crack a u-turn".
Smash into passing motorbicyclist... wait! THAT wasn't on my HabitList!!:shit:

But also (as well) years and years of repeating something every day can also ingrain some good habits, so that basics like riding (turning, changing gears, avoiding obstacles in the road, there's a cop ahead, etc.) well can be done without thinking, and any thinking you do can be about other things, like "I'm tense because the road's wet, and should spend less time looking at the road surface."

[90s]

But being passed by a GN250 mate...............

erm, it had nitrus injection?

[bikemike]

I think Malcolm Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/blink/index.html) also rejected the idea that you 'just know', much as the article here suggests that it's not mystical. The 'intuitive' ability we develop is a result of the way the mind and body works, and how that changes in response to hundreds, thousands, millions of scenarios that teach us how to see the patterns that matter most, and that most miss.
FWIW I think Blink is a lesser book than Tipping Point, but it's a while since I read either...

[90s]

I think Malcolm Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/blink/index.html) also rejected the idea that you 'just know', much as the article here suggests that it's not mystical. ...

Yes, but there is a reason why you "just know" - but the knowledge itself remains tacit and non-transferable (ie experiencal). This is what my previous post was about.
You do "just know" - but there is nothing mystical in it. Accumulated knowledge and experience.

Do the implications of the research show that you can make this stuff transferable? No, but there are ways to structure learning and understanding to make things easier.
The RRRS course for example is good on this.

[moT]

its the whole chi flow, fung swei, 6th sence thing and being one with the motorcycle and everything around you other than whats going on in ur little bubble i guess this can only grow through practice... thinking, yet not dreaming but ready for whatever may happen

[bikemike]

90s, you are right, you do just know. That's the many (experiential) scenarios we learn from. I don't think we disagree...?

More than with many things though, it would be great if we could learn from other people's experiences, and mistakes. Even though the knowledge itself is not transferable, the teaching methods make a huge difference, as you say.

I'm interested in what you say about RRRS - any general public course I've encountered doesn't do more than enumerating hazards, or hazardous scenarios. That is, there's nothing done to teach how to perform well in any developing situation. It's not enough to simply list the facts. Somehow, insight and motivation both need to be switched on, and then exposed to appropriate (even if contrived - as in the article) situations which are used to prime and fast track that learning.

I taught a couple of people to ride, and a couple to drive. I always took some time to walk though a shopping precinct/mall with them to get them into the flow of managing a web of somewhat random 'traffic' hazards and distractions. It's terribly mundane but I thought it was very applicable, and it seems to help. Much safer than doing it on the road, and far more relevant than any track work in that regard :yes: However, that applies simply to developing the spatial aspect, and needs to be plugged into the Road Rules (formal and informal) to have any relevance on the road. It's all very well being able to see everything but if you have no idea what the other traffic will do in response to that you don't have as much of an advantage as you might think - omnipresent but not omniscient perhaps.

What does RRRS do to help this stuff along?

[90s]

RRRS (see the sticky where I posted some reviews of having done it twice) is practically based. 1/2 learn the theory and THEN do the practical. This way you get the situation set-up for you and do the learning in action.
An example is that the 2nd time I did it was with the wife pillion to get her used to it (and me as I've only had pillions on scooters before).
Doing something like a hard figure of 8 one of the instructors Christine (who has riden a lot of pillion as well as her awesome busa) told the wife "try this this time .. now try doing this .. now try doing this". After we worked out what all the effects were she had on the bike we got to the point where she worked out what to do and I could not tell she was on the bike at all. Initially it was very sluggish turning with her on, banging helmets etc. Doubtless we may have gotten to this state with 1000s of ks on the road, but we got there in a few hours.
But the point is - you can set training so that people then "just know". But it may be very hard for them to then pass this on to anyone else.

Yes - I agree with you totally.

[terbang]

I think Malcolm Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/blink/index.html) also rejected the idea that you 'just know', much as the article here suggests that it's not mystical. The 'intuitive' ability we develop is a result of the way the mind and body works, and how that changes in response to hundreds, thousands, millions of scenarios that teach us how to see the patterns that matter most, and that most miss.
FWIW I think Blink is a lesser book than Tipping Point, but it's a while since I read either...

Isn't that the reason "experienced (whatevers)" generally do a better job than "noob (whatevers)". The database (memory) has more in it. Could you imagine picking up an instruction book on how to fly a jet, and strapping into it and doing it right first time. It just doesn't happen and that's why we do lots of training. To fill up the database with the scenarios of survival. Same for anything really, even Sex...:dodge: