No, You Are Not Getting Smarter, Just Older
“Mental Training” by Michael J. Keyes, M.D.
I’m sure a lot of you have seen ads for a set of puzzle books whose main purpose is to make sure your brain remains active and “smart” as you grow old. In fact, there has been quite a business in this regard in various magazines focusing on those of us old enough to join the AARP (49 and over). The premise behind these products is scientific, sort of, and they are based on what is popularly known as the “Nun Study.”
Catholic religious–order sisters (called “nuns”) have an advantage most life researchers deem essential for their studies. Nuns usually join the order at age 16 or so and, from that moment on, virtually everything is known about their medical histories. Also, it is possible to assume their intelligence level by looking at the essay they all have to write upon entering the order and also by reviewing their achievements in life. The Nun Study specifically looks at how the brain changes over time. It has been going on for over 20 years now and follows hundreds of sisters as they age. Some of the findings are interesting.
When a sister included in the study dies, her brain is sent to a lab at the University of Kentucky, where it is studied and evaluated in light of the life each sister led. The original idea was to correlate the physical state of the brain with any signs of dementia that might have occurred while the sister was alive. Since many nuns live to be very old due to proper diet and exercise, there are a lot of brains to study.
The study was set up on the premise those sisters who had all their faculties together when they passed on would have relatively healthy brains, while those who had dementia would have brains with a lot of injury. Because nuns lead healthy lifestyles generally and because the researchers knew everything about each nun’s medical history, a lot of variables could be accounted for. Most of the nuns being studied belonged to teaching orders, which means the sisters were either teachers or support staff. The various life habits, such as reading and hobbies, were also known. What the researchers found surprised everyone.
So far, the relationship between brain damage from strokes or Alzheimer–type changes does not correlate as strongly as suspected. There are numerous cases of sisters who had brains that looked like Swiss cheese on x–ray and autopsy whose cognitive skills suffered very little. The researchers’ expectations were not met in case after case. Clearly, something else was going on.
Photo by Johnny Cantu
The researchers took a second look at each of the nuns who defied their predictions. Almost universally, these sisters were bright and had regularly exercised their brains through constant reading, doing crossword puzzles and other active work with their minds. Those nuns who met the theoretical model did not have habits that kept their minds working all the time. The variation in response to the brain being damaged over the years seemed much more related to brain use than to physical damage.
Over the time this study has been in effect, this relationship of active brains and resistance to brain damage has held steady. It was this finding that led to many of the products mentioned at the beginning of this column. Somewhere along the line, someone made the assumption you could halt cognitive decline by introducing a series of “brain exercises.” These consisted of several books containing puzzles and other brain–teasers, interspersed with some testing to see if the user was able to increase their scores or improve the time it took to finish the puzzles. Often a user could demonstrate he or she had improved problem–solving abilities with these books, and the assumption was brain processing improved, too.
These types of books have become popular as a result of the success seniors have had with them, so a group of scientists in England, along with the British Broadcasting System, enrolled a large number of persons in a study to see if they really worked. The premise of this study was the books should not be working because they were based on a fallacy of inductive reasoning. The logic used to justify the books goes like this: All Texans like the color red; I like the color red; I must be a Texan. The logic used in this case was: Smart people do well on brain–teasers; I practiced on brain–teasers and then did well; I must be smart or smarter.
The problem was, when people who practiced the various tests were tried on similar but not the same types of tests, they did just as well as they would have the first time they took them. When they practiced specific tests, their scores improved, but they did not show an expected increase in ability in other testing. In other words, practice made perfect, it just didn’t make anyone any smarter. The books didn’t do what they were supposed to do.
There were some interesting findings, however. Probably the most important one (to me, at least) was that older persons generally did not have a loss in IQ, but they were slower and more deliberate. Older persons were able to come up with more nuanced answers, which often took into account a number of factors younger people did not consider when they looked at the problems. Older persons improved at about the same rate as others on specific types of problems, they just took a little longer.
So, what does this have to do with learning to shoot? It brings out something a lot of us know intuitively — very specific tasks can be perfected with a lot of training that focuses on that task. In other words, if you are a trap shooter, you should train to shoot trap if you want to reach the limits of the sport.
This brings up the old question of talent versus training. I think it is safe to say most of us believe talent certainly helps, but in an environment in which there are a lot of talented shooters, hard work helps even more. But, these studies also point out the value of focused training.
The basis of all training is to first establish good technique. By doing this, we determine our “vocabulary” (our mutual understanding of how we shoot — important in communicating what we are doing to others), we learn to be efficient and consistent, and we set the stage for the “automatic shot,” which in turn becomes a way to deal effectively with match stress. If we don’t have good basic technique, we will not be able to focus on the intricacies of our sport.
“An old Dutch farmer remarked to a companion once that it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams.”
From an 1864 speech by Abraham Lincoln, in reply to a Delegation from the National Union League, who were urging him to be their presidential candidate.
The theoretical basis of technique is pretty much the same across the board. We have to place the shot so it intersects with the target. This is achieved by a rock–solid mount, motion of the shotgun on a plane coincidental with the target and finding a way to figure out when the best time to shoot is. The latter usually involves a concept called “lead,” and that lead can be one of several types. The best bet is to learn all types of lead in order to have them available, but it is not always necessary to learn all of them if your sport is very specific.
Skeet is the most predictable and specific of the shotgun sports. Almost all books recommend a sustained lead for skeet and give a formula to follow for how to hit the target consistently. More factors are introduced in trap and even more in sporting clays. In each sport, the basic technique is the same, with some introduction of variations in lead. (I know there is more to it than just lead, but we are talking basic technique here.) Here is where it becomes obvious skeet, trap and sporting clays are not the same game. The basics are mostly the same, but once you are shooting one game or the other, there are vast differences that become apparent, especially if you are shooting one game a lot.
In the beginning, when basic technique is the most important aspect of training, all the games are equally hard. If you are talented, you might become as proficient at one game as the other. But in order to truly advance in one game, you have to immerse yourself in it and learn the intimate details of the game in order to succeed at the highest levels. It is very hard to be an elite–level shooter at more than one game unless you first succeed at one and then switch over to the other. Granted, there are very talented shooters who have done this, but most of us don’t start out at that level.
The studies in England show hard work focusing on specific types of work will enhance your chances of improving in that venue. Above a certain level, there is very little crossover from one type of activity to another, even if those activities are similar. The devil appears to be in the details. The better you get at one task, the more details you see and the more you focus on learning those details. Similar activities have different details, and that is where the need to focus lies.
This brings us back to the nuns. Those nuns who defied the logic of “damaged brain means poor cognition” were constantly working on detailed, full–brain activities like crossword puzzles. They were able to develop new brain pathways that took over when the original ones were damaged. As you perfect your sport, a similar thing occurs. Your brain develops several pathways to solve a problem in your specific sport. That way, if there is an impediment (such as match pressure), another solution is already there.
There is an interesting contradiction here. The more you realize you need to focus on the little details, the more you understand the process of improving in your game. This understanding is probably the one other thing (the first being the basic technique) you can bring with you if you ever decide to change games. Switching over is not so much “unlearning” as refocusing. If you are successful at one aspect of shotgun shooting, you can be successful at another; you just need to realize your workrate has to increase and you have to find the details that are important in the new game. This will take awhile and there will be some jettisoning of the old details as you progress.
You can have fun shooting all the shotgun games, but if you really want to succeed at one, you have to focus on that game in order to be at the top of the game.
Dr. Keyes has written over 200 articles on mental training for Shotgun Sports and is author of the book Mental Training For The Shotgun Sports. He is a former physician for the U.S. Shooting Team, retired Colonel from the Army Reserve and a veteran of Viet Nam and Desert Storm. A Tennessee state pistol champion and coach of several national championship teams, he currently practices in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You can e-mail him at mikeyes@charter.net.