General Categories > Information Arsenal

What do you need to CCW?

(1/4) > >>

JTH:
Awhile back I had a discussion with several people about what they "needed" to CCW in Nebraska, and in that discussion they assured me that they were good shots, and knew how to defend themselves.  They just wanted to know what was needed from a CCW perspective.

I never did find out how they "knew" they were good shots, and why they thought they "knew" how to defend themselves. 

"Need" really is a short list.  But it is very different from what you WANT if you plan on CCWing.

http://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/what-do-you-need-to-ccw/

It does bring up the question---so what do YOU do to find out what all is outside of your circles?  How do YOU find out things you don't know, if you don't even KNOW you don't know them? 


What do YOU do to increase your circles, and decrease the area outside of your circles?  (The "YOU" keeps getting emphasized because I'm curious what you guys actually do to fix that.)

Mudinyeri:

--- Quote from: jthhapkido on December 11, 2014, 06:43:30 AM ---What do YOU do to increase your circles, and decrease the area outside of your circles?
--- End quote ---

The diagram is logically flawed ... THIS I know.

OnTheFly:
You don't know "What you don't know".  You only know what you need to work on to improve.

Fly

JTH:

--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on December 11, 2014, 01:55:56 PM ---The diagram is logically flawed ... THIS I know.


--- End quote ---

Oh, yeah.  It has real problems.  The amusing part is that people realize what it MEANS really clearly---even if what it SAYS (from a logical perspective) doesn't make any sense.


Edited to add, because I started thinking about why this is clear to most people even though it is logically incorrect (since you can't know and not-know something at the same time): If you treat it from a statement case, instead of a meaning case, it really IS logically consistent.  After all, if there is something you know and you don't know, either:

1) you don't know you know it, or
2) you know that you don't know it

This diagram picks the first one of those to go with.   

In terms of meaning, then yeah, logically you can't know and not-know something.

You could think of it in terms of operators, instead of containers:  This circle contains a group of things.  The operation is that we know this group of things.  This other circle's operation is that we DON'T know this group of things.  If an item is in both circles, it depends on which operation we apply first: 

We don't know this thing, and we know it.  (don't know operates first)
We know this thing, but we don't know it.  (know operates first)

"Know" of course also meaning realize.  (We realize that we don't know this thing.  We don't realize that we do know this thing.)

That probably is why this diagram is so clear to people, even though from a meaning perspective it is impossible.  From an operation or status perspective, it makes perfect sense.

SemperFiGuy:
Donald Rumsfeld, former SecDef, called them "Known Unknowns", which is a common term in project management parlance.

(Of course, the newsies freaked out and went crazy at that point.  Woulda been different if their very own SecDef, John Kerry, had uttered the very same expression.)

FWIW,

sfg

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page