The doctor asked the patient if he has been experiencing problems with his memory. The patient replied, “How would I know?”
It is a cute joke but it contains a sliver of truth. I know that I have never learned how to perform brain surgery. I also know that I have been taught how to calculate the circumference of a circle. Today I can do neither.
The fact of the matter is, can we be truly sure of what we know and what we do not know? Repetition and reinforcement can support our knowledge base which maintains our level of memory. Or does it?
When we examine the field of memory, the two extremes are easy to define. One point can be defined as “We Know That” while the opposite point “We Don’t Know That.”
The gray area between the black and white ends can present quite a challenge. How can we identify what an individual does not know when that individual may not know what he does not know?
The simple answer is repetitive training, but how do we address the other issues that affect memory? Head injury, stress and dementia are examples of issues that can cause havoc with an individuals’ performance. Clearly this issue is rife with complicating problems.
Law enforcement is faced with demands that want assurance that performance will be proper at all times. We deal with situations that span from life-and-death to civil liability. It would be to our advantage to take an approach that will arm us further against exposure to forces that negatively affect our performance.
Traditionally, law enforcement training is anchored upon on-the-job training. We have all heard a field training officer (FTO) state, “This is how we do it.”
I propose that we go one step further and promulgate, “This is why we do it this way.”
By introducing the “why” factor we introduce reasoning into the decision matrix of our officers. Considering the complex issues that law enforcement deals with the reasoning tool will go a long way in aiding an officer to arrive at the proper decision.