ATM, I think we're finally getting somewhere now.
The most important progress we've made is to determine that you do in fact teach Cooper #1 with only minor rewording as a fundamental and absolutely crucial part of your training. You choose not to list it in your rules, but you teach it every bit as strongly as Jeff Cooper did - irrational assumptions and beliefs wholeheartedly included. This is interesting given your extremely vocal opposition to Cooper #1 but it does remove a big chunk of my issue with your argument given that your stated position completely contradicts your actual position.
Or, I can distinguish a memorable catchphrase from a risk mitigation step as well as a reasonably sound catchphrase from a dangerously unsound catchphrase. Feel free to expound on the contradiction you believe you’ve identified.
On what do you base this statement?
I’ve deduced that likelihood from the sum of our discussion so far, no one thing in particular. I have no way of knowing, but you are free to inform me, if you wish, of your experiences or considerations of other approaches. If you have actually experienced and considered other approaches and are truly just playing the role against this one for the exercise, I must commend you for doing so very well.
That is yet another a false dichotomy. Rote memorization of NRA3 will be just as ineffective as rote memorization of Cooper4. Comprehensive and internalized understanding of either (at least with the addition of Cooper #1 to NRA3 which we have already established that you strongly emphasize in your training) is vastly preferred.
Yet another? Have you identified any false dichotomies specifically that actually were?
When I lead people to comprehensively understand old #1, it is only for the purpose of exposing its failings and having them discard it. For those who haven’t already memorized it, it does not need undone. There is nothing to be undone in the rest of those, only a more universal wording and placement of what most already imagined the Cooper4 to entail.
For the umpteenth time you confuse effective application with ruleset. I hope someone else goes through your metaphorical bathwater with a fine tooth comb.
I can’t in good conscience effectively teach a component I will not myself be subject to. One of those rulesets contains a stumbling block. My task is to remove stumbling blocks and make the student successful and responsible.
ATM, you (or whoever taught you the proper application of NRA3) did just make a rule to deal with that. You just called it "only an unhandled gun is safe." And you didn't list it in your primary rules to act as a reminder.
The closest to a rule that might be considered would be in the sense of a maxim, not a rule or a step to deal with anything, but a saying to capture a general or self-evident truth.
Then why do you do it?
Because you say I do? Not sure how else to respond until I see whatever it is you see.
Not bad! I'll think about it some, but at first blush my reaction is that it is simply a more neutral rephrasing that again lacks the emotional impact of the original. I'll get back to you after some time to consider.
Thanks?
Hold on, you said the following:
If you can't support the claim except with a vague appeal to authority I'll consider that it was just you blowing smoke and move on without further addressing it. Your call.
Did you read the earlier thread quoted and suggested in this one earlier? I’ve discussed the importance of primacy of order and placement as humans tend to sequentially process thoughts into actions according to the sequence of recalling their memorized guides. One such example was the ABC’s of CPR instruction and changing the instructed and memorized sequence to CAB when it was determined that chest Compressions were more important to start with than Airway or Breathing. Cooper4 is out of order, it pushed the golden rule of safe gun handling to #2.
If you want more underlying principles of educational/teaching theory, I recommend you PM ol’ huff, he’s offered several instructor development seminars over the years that delve into the craft of more effectively teaching. He also commented in that same past thread (post #96) regarding Cooper#1 being a false metaphor, leading the Cooper list with it, and the problems that creates according the principles of curriculum theory. He’d probably be willing to blow as much smoke on this subject as you’d care for, but if you haven’t read that other thread, you’re missing quite a bit of the progression of this argument.
Is it possible that time and experience have taught you to be a better teacher regardless of the ruleset you are applying? Have you personally gone from teaching rote memorization of Cooper4 to focusing on internalization and in-depth comprehension of NRA3 and confused the actual cause of improvement in student understanding - assuming that is what you have actually observed?
Sure, I’ve become a better teacher, but I haven’t confused that with the failings of Cooper#1 or what I consider to be the improvement of adopting and teaching NRA3 over Cooper#2-4. NRA3 are a more reasonable and complete set. I find them superior in every sense.
Likewise, now that it actually has become a discussion.
What were we doing before you considered it a discussion?