Defending a practice

[Black Bear]

Sometimes forumites go to great and passionate lengths in defending a certain practice or methodology. When the funny thing is, for the most part, they only did it that way in the first place because that's what their instructor told them to do. Forms or no. Shoes or no.

You want to talk about cognitive dissonance?

[loki09789]

You want to talk about cognitive dissonance?

No, because my mom told me never to use language like that :)

Seriously though:

For me, the goal is self defense application/effectiveness. With that, innovation is what keeps you sharp and develops creativity under pressure - a pretty handy skill in self defense. The 'arms race' or technology race of the modern military is all about effectiveness. It has research and development aspects that seek innovations tactically as well as technically/technology, why should it be taboo in martial arts for civilians - except that students/artists may not always be motivated by effectiveness or street defense in their martial arts goals. I have no problem with this unless these same people try and say that they can be street effective. Defend a practice because it is logical, mechanically sound, creating positive results... not just because of tradition. Tradition argument was a defense of slavery during the Civil War... that worked.

Traditions all had some kind of practical root. Once that practicallity is lost, it becomes custom. Once the motivation to preserve the past is involved it becomes ritual. After a while people don't even know why they do certain things. The movie Whale Rider was great in explaining how a training program that is for personal development/cultural preservation is all about. If it had been about effective training for polynesian cultural defense, they would have been learning firearms and manuever tactics instead of stick fighting and sticking their tongues out.

Are you training for clear/tactical goals and the technical development and training accomplishing that, or are you training for the sake of training and along the way you could be able to defend yourself? If Martial arts is sought for self defense, tradition is the least reasonable reason to take a style.

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Bear:

I'm sure as a psych, you remember the research about high dogmatic vs. low dogmatic (been a very long time, but I think it was even doen as an appen to Cog Diss research, in terms of likelihood predictors for given responses to lowering dissonance. Anyway, I figure we're surrounded by Hi-Dogs (as evidenced by the resurgence of fundamentalism), and the folks around us can't help themselves.

[Black Bear]

*smiles smugly around at the people who know exactly what he's talking about*

[TonyM.]

Sure, I'd like to talk about Leon Festinger, but Jung is more interesting.

[Black Bear]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Jason Davis]

I just think people don't like to be wrong, and being on an internet forum makes it a hole lot easier to argue with someone. This particular forum isn't nearly as bad as some other ones though.

oh yeah BB thank you for for teaching me something new(cognitive dissonance) :)

[Black Bear]

Bear:

I'm sure as a psych, you remember the research about high dogmatic vs. low dogmatic (been a very long time, but I think it was even doen as an appen to Cog Diss research, in terms of likelihood predictors for given responses to lowering dissonance. Anyway, I figure we're surrounded by Hi-Dogs (as evidenced by the resurgence of fundamentalism), and the folks around us can't help themselves.
I'd say MT is about a dozen intelligent people trying to have a fruitful conversation about martial philosophy, in a room ful of Hi-Dogs yelping and fighting over who's Top-Dog.

But I admit, sometimes I like baiting the dogs. It's kinda funny.

[Makalakumu]

I'd say MT is about a dozen intelligent people trying to have a fruitful conversation about martial philosophy, in a room ful of Hi-Dogs yelping and fighting over who's Top-Dog.

But I admit, sometimes I like baiting the dogs. It's kinda funny.

How do you know that you are not a hi-dog?

[Black Bear]

That's a good question. How DO you know? :)

If you guys are lazy enough to not produce an answer to this, I may throw out some thoughts on the matter when I get back from my road trip.

[7starmantis]

This display of smug, pseudo-psychological analytical self boasting is nauseating. The bravado in here is embarrassing. Its benighted to assume that you or anyone else is more intelligent or learned than anyone else by reading a posting of this medium.

Actually I would like to apply for a thread lock for this particular thread as its not only embarrassing to me for those here who are bragging themselves to no extent, it is also offensive in the fact that this is a martial arts board and this type of anti-humane behavior has no place in martial arts or anything in connection with martial arts.

7sm

[Black Bear]

No treat for you.

[2fisted]

I usually try to stay away from the arguments on these boards. I really like what I do and it feels right for me, so I'll keep on doing what I'm doing. If someone doesn't like it, that's cool too. :ultracool

[moving target]

This display of smug, pseudo-psychological analytical self boasting is nauseating. The bravado in here is embarrassing. Its benighted to assume that you or anyone else is more intelligent or learned than anyone else by reading a posting of this medium.

Actually I would like to apply for a thread lock for this particular thread as its not only embarrassing to me for those here who are bragging themselves to no extent, it is also offensive in the fact that this is a martial arts board and this type of anti-humane behavior has no place in martial arts or anything in connection with martial arts.

7sm
I really don't see how this thread is much different than threads like " What's the thing that annoys you the most with some martial arts?"

I suppose it is target at "forumites" but still Idon't think it's that bad. I'm sure you have come across some people on this board that argue in favor of something without good reason, when argument is really based on a regurgitation of something someone told them, than a series of ad hock adaptations or pointless hypotheticals (I'm one to talk :-p) and anecdotes to make their view fit.

[7starmantis]

I certainly agree that there are those who blindly argue the importance or superiority of said technique or method without any personal experience or having tested it more than, my instructor told me so.

What I have a problem with in this thread is not the topic (if it stayed on topic that is) but with the way some of the posters are handling themselves, that is what I find obnoxious, not the discussion by any means.

7sm

[DeilGyre]

I What I have a problem with in this thread is not the topic (if it stayed on topic that is) but with the way some of the posters are handling themselves, that is what I find obnoxious, not the discussion by any means.
7sm7starmantis, I want to buy you a drink, my good man. You nailed it just right, and very politely too.
Now let an unwashed Scotsman shake his fist at the obvious ARSE...


I'd say MT is about a dozen intelligent people trying to have a fruitful conversation about martial philosophy, in a room ful of Hi-Dogs yelping and fighting over who's Top-Dog.
But I admit, sometimes I like baiting the dogs. It's kinda funny.
*smiles smugly around at the people who know exactly what he's talking about*I really enjoy the company of egotistical internet masters, how about you guys?
You get your jollies from projecting your supposed intellect and degrading anything unfounded in your opinion, don't you?
That's the image you're projecting, in case this shite you're piling is too high for you to see yourself.
Take this impression from a new guy to these forums, who doesn't even know you - YOU STINK!
After reading your posts, Black Bear, not just in this thead but others too - I can tell you're a pompous, obnoxious ass.
I hope this post means something to you other than another opening to present yourself gloriously with another smart aleck comeback.
What you want to say is "I'm sorry guys, I've been arrogant lately. I apologize for baiting the general foum and putting down other people who don't agree with me. I'm afraid my head has gotten too big for myself. Can you nice folks forgive me?"
Somehow I doubt that will be your announcement.

[someguy]

Methinks this will be locked soon if people keep going for personal attacks. Shall we take bets on how long...
btw I personlly like this board as there are fewer flame wars and what not.

If this comes off as an attack onanyone personally sorry don't take it that way.

[Tgace]

You all are just failing to realize that Im the smartest guy here. :)

[Rich Parsons]

That's a good question. How DO you know? :)

If you guys are lazy enough to not produce an answer to this, I may throw out some thoughts on the matter when I get back from my road trip.I might be lazy.

I might even reply.

Yet, I find that your comment could mean that you are lazy, as you will not take the time until you get back from your road trip. I might be swamped with work and other issues, to get involved in your discussion.

I hopefully wish for you not to believe that I might be one of the dozen of your Intelligencia discussing issues above the rest of the crowd.

Yet to determine a hi-dog from top-dog is hard without testing the eyes and tilt of the head and their killer instinct, and a whole bunch of other things.

Could you define what each is? This would give me something to reference from if I choose to discuss the issue.

For I do not believe, yours and mine definition(s) are the same.
:asian:

[8253]

wow :-partyon:

[Cryozombie]

My two cents:

An education does not equal intelligence.

I can use big words to seem like a big man, but why? The lesson *I* learned from the martial arts is to be humble, before someone humbles you. Maybe that is the practice or methodology that I will defend for no other reason than my instructor told me so, but it makes logical sense to me. Maybe that makes me a "Hi-dog"

And Rich,

Those are very good points, but even the Top Dog's need to realize someone is only “Top Dog” until a bigger dog comes along.

[loki09789]

For all those tongue lashing the type of language used on this post, COME ON! It took me 15 minutes of internet research to find a basic understanding of what the terms I didn't understand were.

The 'cognetive dissonance' and 'high/low dogma' talk was a simple google search of explanation away.

Instead of 'shortening someone elses line' because you assume that they are being superior - when it might be the only way they know how to phrase an explanation at that time (my Dad tried explaining a carburator to me once - even his basic lang. explanation was over my head then and that was 10 years ago) just take some of the precious Martial Talk surfing time, and do some personal research to 'lengthen your own line.' "Big Words" are only "Big" if you don't bother to own the language by learning.

The general philosophy/commentary in this forum/website to avoid taking things at face value, seek understanding - being humbe also means accepting that you might not know everything someone else does know, regardless of language/education/sophistication/intelligence. But, if it wasn't 'cognetive dissonance' and 'high/low dogma' establishing the tone and it was 'Dobac', 'jarimao', or 'Mariki Kusari' and you didn't know what it meant, you would either look it up or just ask. Why is this any different? I have done internet research and asked many times about art/cultural language that I didn't know.

[7starmantis]

The difference being that I do understand everything that was said. I didn't need to look it up as I'm minoring in psych as we speak. The definition and language again, is not necessarily the true problem I had, it was the blatant disregard for those who might not understand, or better said, the blatant display of believed self superiority. I know exactly what they are talking about, and yet I can describe it in a way that isn't obnoxious. Its the bragging and "smug smiles" and such that nauseate me. Its not the language that upsets me but the usage of the language. If I don't understand something, I go look it up, in this post I didn't require that, I understood to well the language and usage of this type.

7sm

[Rich Parsons]

For all those tongue lashing the type of language used on this post, COME ON! It took me 15 minutes of internet research to find a basic understanding of what the terms I didn't understand were.

The 'cognetive dissonance' and 'high/low dogma' talk was a simple google search of explanation away.

Instead of 'shortening someone elses line' because you assume that they are being superior - when it might be the only way they know how to phrase an explanation at that time (my Dad tried explaining a carburator to me once - even his basic lang. explanation was over my head then and that was 10 years ago) just take some of the precious Martial Talk surfing time, and do some personal research to 'lengthen your own line.' "Big Words" are only "Big" if you don't bother to own the language by learning.

The general philosophy/commentary in this forum/website to avoid taking things at face value, seek understanding - being humbe also means accepting that you might not know everything someone else does know, regardless of language/education/sophistication/intelligence. But, if it wasn't 'cognetive dissonance' and 'high/low dogma' establishing the tone and it was 'Dobac', 'jarimao', or 'Mariki Kusari' and you didn't know what it meant, you would either look it up or just ask. Why is this any different? I have done internet research and asked many times about art/cultural language that I didn't know.
Paul,


I agree that changing your vocabulary may not be the correct thing to do. I personally just do not wish people to think I am purposefully talking over people's heads.

I use the the word arguement many times. I even ask people to look it up before the get upset. For arguement does not mean yelling and screaming and fist waving or , ..., . It does mean two or more sides presenting their points of view and a concise manner to be discussed and to be articulated, and hopefully understood by all thsoe present.

What I take exception to, are those that assume that they have an education and therefore are much more superior, or have more intelligence then others present or not. I took the original post to try to claim that there were a few people who were above the rest, and were above repoach because they knew what they were talking about because they could articulate themselves in a written format and/or give the impression that they were well read. I have knew a lot of intelligent and insightful unedcated people. I do agree that an education has helped me being able to find words and phrases to try to comunicate and teach others. Yet, my point was I cannot stop others from their personal beliefs of ebing a part of the intelligencia. I can ask them not to include me in their group though.

I do like you post.

I do like the fact that you did the research to prove how easy it is to find things on the internet.

I just do not wish to be considered intelligencia. I prefer to be considered educated and willing to communicte with anyone. :)

Thank You
:asian:

[loki09789]

The difference being that I do understand everything that was said. I didn't need to look it up as I'm minoring in psych as we speak. The definition and language again, is not necessarily the true problem I had, it was the blatant disregard for those who might not understand, or better said, the blatant display of believed self superiority. I know exactly what they are talking about, and yet I can describe it in a way that isn't obnoxious. Its the bragging and "smug smiles" and such that nauseate me. Its not the language that upsets me but the usage of the language. If I don't understand something, I go look it up, in this post I didn't require that, I understood to well the language and usage of this type.

7sm

7*,

We have both come off as opinionated, superior and elitist to other posters because we staunchly hold to an idea and argue it until it is a bloody pulp. We have defended, explained and worked hard to try and understand other posters intentions. Black Bear is a 'personality' type of poster, as others can be. With my Ed./English background, I get some of it - and what I don't get I use my liguistic/interpretive/research skills to try and understand. Personallity attacks never really prove productive.

[Kenpo Yahoo]

For those who may feel left out due to "UNNECESSARY" vocabulary:

Cognitive dissonance- is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

1) if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.

2) if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

Copied from: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

[loki09789]

Don't we all, at times, take a stance of 'topical/subject/experiencial/training superiority?'

I know that there are topics here that I have been 'superior' to other posters on based on my background/training... and a myriad of other reasons. And I know for Da&^ Sure that there are topics of discussion that others have been 'superior' to me on based on the same thing.

I accepted BB's verbally challenging language and 'sparred' verbally by improving my training/skill on the topic of discussion, and threw my response on the topic out there. If I spent all my time responding emotionally to this stuff, assuming another poster's meaning/tone, then I am not demonstrating my personal goal of topical discussion.

I am MORE than sure that there have been topical discussions where each of us have felt like we are in a minority of posters who 'get it' surrounded by people who don't understand something as well as we do.

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I don't know much about psychology and anyone who has ever read one of my posts can easily see that my grammar sucks. However, I do enjoy learning something new. Cognitive dissonance is something that I had never heard of. Yet after Google-ing (shut-up... it can be a verb :uhyeah: ) and picking the very first site listed, I was able to retrieve a decent explanation.

In fact, I think that it explains alot of what we are seeing in the martial art communities today, especially the traditional MA's like kenpo.

I kind of agree with these guys. It seems like there are alot of people on this board that care more about tradition and what it says in chapter so-and-so of such-and-such manual or book, than they do about trying to learn more effective methods. I found the comments to be a fairly accurate description of the mood around here (at least as of late).

Change may not always be easy, but if the process leads to more effective and/or efficient methods then the change was worth it.

[someguy]

If you don't knopw what something means theres always time to learn.
THanks Kenpo Yahoo I didn't know what it meant so now I know. I guess we can all learn something new. THis stuff really isn't my area so not to likely to know what it means. I guess the whole theres no shame in asking only shame in not learning thing is true. Maybe we should be more willing to ask right?

[Cryozombie]

For all those tongue lashing the type of language used on this post, COME ON! It took me 15 minutes of internet research to find a basic understanding of what the terms I didn't understand were.


The causatum as I see it is the erroneous precept that states that simply because an individual has the aptitude to verbalize in a higher English than those in the “mean populace” is an adequate pretext for doing just that, and then flaunting your superiority over the archetypal man. :rofl: :rofl:

[7starmantis]

7*,

We have both come off as opinionated, superior and elitist to other posters because we staunchly hold to an idea and argue it until it is a bloody pulp. We have defended, explained and worked hard to try and understand other posters intentions. Black Bear is a 'personality' type of poster, as others can be. With my Ed./English background, I get some of it - and what I don't get I use my liguistic/interpretive/research skills to try and understand. Personallity attacks never really prove productive.
I do everything I can to not appear elitist, superior, or staunchly hold onto ideas because of basic cognitive dissonance. Never have I said I had an issue with Black Bear, you brought him into this specifically, I'm referring to a more broad group. I'm also not attacking anyone personally, I'm simply stating the painfully obvious and asking for this to be handled.


What I have a problem with in this thread is not the topic (if it stayed on topic that is) but with the way some of the posters are handling themselves, that is what I find obnoxious, not the discussion by any means.
This is my point, again. I don't have a problem with anyone dicussing the topic and I'm not saying the topic isn't appropriate, I'm saying simply what I said.

7sm

[loki09789]

I do everything I can to not appear elitist, superior, or staunchly hold onto ideas because of basic cognitive dissonance. Never have I said I had an issue with Black Bear, you brought him into this specifically, I'm referring to a more broad group. I'm also not attacking anyone personally, I'm simply stating the painfully obvious and asking for this to be handled.


This is my point, again. I don't have a problem with anyone dicussing the topic and I'm not saying the topic isn't appropriate, I'm saying simply what I said.

7sm

I did bring up Black Bear, and no you didn't single him out, but that was because I went back and saw that he was the author of the majority of the posts with a 'tone' that could be construde as 'superior.' You did refer to the 'smug smiling' thing - which was a Black Bearism which is why I used him as an example.

Back to the topic, I would love to read your feedback though. Throw it out there:)

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

The sophists in ancient greece were men who studied rhetoric for the sake of determiing the truth, through the process of debate. The assumption was that the truth was there for discovery, if we could but chip away at the delusions and defenses that contort it. Each man was trained to argue adeptly, whether or not he agreed with the side of the argument he was on (i.e., if theres an abortion debate going on, and one side is losing, regardless of your own perceptions, you were obliged to take up the cause of the losing side to balance out the search for truth).

Education may not make one smarter, and certainly in the spirit of rhetorical training, is not meant to unlevel the field, but rather to level it for all. However, it is also the obligation of the participants to use their critical reasoning skills and rhetorical training to posit the best argument/case they can. Sometimes, it may sound high-fallutin'. Other times, the simplest phrase can relate the deepest meanings. In psych, even at the undergrad level, students are taught critical thinking for the purposes of evaluating the state and quality of the published literature, and emerging theories. Bear has stated on multiple occasions that his experience is with behavioral experimental design...one of the more rigorous evaluative approaches to empiricism. What sounds like ego may, in fact, represnt frustration with people who put little or no thought into their perspectives, then hold them tenaciously despite not having thought through good enough reasons for their position. ("because" is not an argument, and "says you" is not a defense).

As an ex-shrink and current Chiro, I can't stand it when people come in with half cocked pseudo-science articles form a health mag, and say "but it says here it's clinically proven and doctor recommended". The article will use hedges in the language of claims.."may reduce weight for some people, also on restricted caloric intake programs..." but the reader...an otherwise intelligent person, skips over the hedges and evasive linguistics to assert the supremacy of the claim, without critique.

I recommend eating poop for arthritis. If even one poop-eating patient experiences a spontaneous reduction in severity of symptoms, I can make the claim "doctor recommended and clinically proven", bottle the feces, and charge exhorbitant fees on late night infomercials.

Many of us spent years learning to hone our critical thinking skills as a necessary part of our profession. We don't feel elite, as much as frustrated with folks who simply elect not to think. Ad Hominem attacks and Argumentum ad Verecundium are the two most common logical fallaicies (falsely-based causes for drawing a conclusion and defending it) used in these forums. Ad Hominem is an attack on the person ("what would you know", or "Bear is just an opinionated wad that way"), and Argumentum ad Verecundium is an appeal to authority (the Pope said it; it must be true). Other classics rearing their heads are slippery slope and straw man (google it).

Am I claiming superior intellect? Hell no. I can't even find my keys half the time, and haven't been able to muster the concentration to balance my checkbook for years. I am claiming to come to the table with a different set of rhetorical tools, which...ideally...provide better insight into the ability to call BULL on silly assertions, propositions, presuppositions, and conclusions.

Base your position on something other than "my daddy is bigger than your daddy", or "Sifu said so", or "you must be and idiot for thinking that". Ad hominem and ad verecundium approaches are tired, pointless, and go nowhere but in circles. (the bible is the sole source of truth about god. Why? because the bible says so).

There are a lot of great minds in MA, and I check in to this forum to see what they offer on topics. Great minds DO NOT EQUAL intelligencia. Balintawaks humility is, to me, a sign of true greatness. 7*M and I may disagree on most things technical and combative, but he'll occasionally make a good point in the midst of his highly opinionated and myopic semantic dissections (fancy words for him being as opinionated and egocentric as he accuses unspecified contributors to this thread of being). A stance itself worthy of respect.

Anti-intellectualism is a ridiculous kind of ignorance, and to claim a thread needs to be shut down because people talking over your head seems arrogant, is in itself an act of intolerance based on arrogance. If you don't like the tone of the thread, don't read it. That's the power of free choice. You can CHOOSE not to participate in things you disapprove of...vote with your feet, and walk out of the room!

Expecting to be reamed for being arrogant and extemporaneous,

Dr. Dave

[Brother John]

Sometimes forumites go to great and passionate lengths in defending a certain practice or methodology. When the funny thing is, for the most part, they only did it that way in the first place because that's what their instructor told them to do. Forms or no. Shoes or no.

You want to talk about cognitive dissonance?

True. I understand their wanting to defend their point, but a person can only defend what they "know", not those things that they do just because "That's the way we do that".

Innovation is the key to accomplishing cognitive dissonance. That's one of the things I've always liked the most about Kenpo. In formulating a technique (altering any aspect about it, the attack, the defense, tempo/timing, the targets used...etc.) you deviate from the standard class-room technique and it forces people to readjust. It's like if you put the standard, 'by the book' technique on a graphline at zero and each deviation goes out +1/-1, +2/-2...etc.
Of course there are LOTS of other ways to alter the execution/practice of our arts too. Creativity and logic should be applied after the foundation of our arts is understood and somewhat internalized.

Easiest way to spot a martial artist who doesn't train with cognitive dissonance?
They are the ones that make the excuse that the attacker didn't attack "The right way".
:rolleyes:
Your Brother
John

[TonyM.]

I'll simplify for everyone. Cognative dissodence is what you go through after Richard Simmons slaps you while your wearing your ninja disguise.

[Ceicei]

This appears more to be a thread based on how people think/say rather than on defense of practices.

Considering we all use words to express, they can be a tool to share thoughts or to attack--either directly or indirectly. One of the things I learned with my psychology and through the people I work with, if you wish to discuss topics, know your "audience". Use words that the majority of the specific audience would understand.

If words are intentionally "elevated" by using jargon that the audience doesn't understand or does not directly apply to the topic matter, then it is a reflection upon the attitude of the person.

That said, why would it matter if a martial artist prefers to stick with doing things a certain way versus one who prefers to learn the most efficient way to adapt? If the expectations and goals of the martial art style is made clear and there is no pretense or misrepresentation, then the student gets what is taught.

The question here is not whether a practice is worth defending, but whether the student understands what is learned and keeps a realistic perspective, and whether the instructor is upfront about the style and acknowledge the limits.

- Ceicei

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

True. I understand their wanting to defend their point, but a person can only defend what they "know", not those things that they do just because "That's the way we do that".

Innovation is the key to accomplishing cognitive dissonance. That's one of the things I've always liked the most about Kenpo. In formulating a technique (altering any aspect about it, the attack, the defense, tempo/timing, the targets used...etc.) you deviate from the standard class-room technique and it forces people to readjust. It's like if you put the standard, 'by the book' technique on a graphline at zero and each deviation goes out +1/-1, +2/-2...etc.
Of course there are LOTS of other ways to alter the execution/practice of our arts too. Creativity and logic should be applied after the foundation of our arts is understood and somewhat internalized.

Easiest way to spot a martial artist who doesn't train with cognitive dissonance?
They are the ones that make the excuse that the attacker didn't attack "The right way".
:rolleyes:
Your Brother
John
I think you meant to say innovation would be a way to decrease cognitive diossonance. CD might be characterized in this context as the ambilalence one experiences when some part of their system lets them down. The state of anxiety you face while deciding to A) learn more of the system you use, because you must not have known enough if it failed you, or B) cross-train in something else is cognitive dissonance. Dissonance is diminished by making a decision to end the battle in your head btw apparently disparate options.

Just a thought.

D.

[Black Bear]

Okay, I'm back from out of town. I was writing this response a little earlier but went out for dinner. Turducken. Fascinating. I recommend you google it if you’ve never had it.

I'm looking through this thread and thinking, WOW, some people here really put the "mental" in "judgemental". I’m astonished that what a few of us wrote would so deeply offend a lot of people here and evoke personal attacks (in addition to some criticisms that were stated in a very reasonable manner). As someone said, even if someone doesn’t have any background knowledge, it takes two minutes of googling to get a rudimentary understanding of all the terms that were mentioned in the thread.

The objections appear to be more in terms of “process” stuff than actual content. I wonder if after all that we can return to the intended purpose and substance of the thread. The idea was simple: people usually "know" that what they're doing is good because it was handed down from someone with credentials, with a lineage, and that person offers plausible-sounding rationales. Other people, who are doing completely opposite things, have the same reason for believing in what THEY do: they too are getting it from someone with credentials, a lineage, etc. To me, this should really cause some of us to call into question our epistemology. Yet people get into these impassioned debates, and what ground do they have to stand on…? Really, they believe it because they do it. They do it because they were told to. But if someone else was told something different, and does that, and believes it, they’ll decry it.

If we call our epistemology into question, we call into question EVERYTHING WE DO. That is why this matters to martial arts A GREAT DEAL. How do we evaluate truth and best practice?

A little clarification on cog-dis. The theory goes that when you have this unpleasant clash of cognitions, you’ll alleviate it IN THE MOST EFFORTLESS WAY POSSIBLE. Specifically, you’re less likely to change actual behaviour. You’re also less likely to change in a way that you’ll lose face, or give up “core” beliefs that you attach a lot of importance to. When the promised UFO doesn’t come, cult members don’t generally lose faith, they entrench themselves more. They develop moderating beliefs that kind of bridge their beliefs with the new information. Sometimes their belief systems get kind of wonky. They go through all kinds of contorted rationalizations to make it all fit.

About how to know if you're a hi-dog or not. As people take in new information, they can reconcile it with their existing body of knowledge and beliefs in one of two ways:
assimilation: transform the information to make it fit your belief system/knowledge base
accomodation: adapt your belief system to include the new information, with whatever necessary revisions to the belief system.

Hi-dogs will generally assimilate rather than accomodate. That’s why they’re hi-dogs. Their belief system is inflexible.

I think one way that a person can recognize whether they’re a hi-dog or a lo-dog is to consider how much they’ve adjusted their belief system, and your practices, when faced with information which profoundly challenged your ideas. Otherwise, check yourself. If you lack exposure to contradictory information, that’s a bad sign too. Consider whether you’ve been insulating yourself from contradictory info. Has your instructor encouraged you to insulate yourself? Are you forbidden from training someplace else? Reading or viewing videos? Why?

Of course, it may be that you’re not a hi-dog by nature, but it happened that the first school you stumbled into practiced The One System That Is Light-Years Ahead Of The Rest, and the practices and teachings there have a level of sophistication and validity that is truly above the rest. They do all the right drills and prescribe all the right books. They do the right things, the right way, for the right reasons. In that case, you might not revise your belief system simply because there is no reason to do so. You were right all along. When you come into contact with other methodologies online, it is quite plain to you why they miss the boat.

Of course, hi-dogs usually believe themselves to have been so endowed. Hi-dogs will generally not recognize themselves as such, it’s pretty difficult to do. A fish doesn’t know what water is. A point of clarification: A hi-dog isn’t someone who just happened to get into a “martial cult”. It’s a personality variable. They tend to really hang onto their beliefs with a death grip. If you or I is a very thoughtful person with good intellectual integrity and lo-dog, and we get suckered by a mcdojo and go there for a few years, that doesn't make us a hi-dog. We're still susceptible to the instructor's mind-games to some degree because we're human. We're social beings and susceptible to mechanisms of social control. Hopefully with time we'll come to our senses. We still may say ignorant things on the net, on account of our brainwashing.

Marc MacYoung http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/cults.htm and Matt Thornton http://www.straightblastgym.com/page.asp?section=philosophy&parent=Press&session= have put forward some ideas about what blocks people from seeing the truth. Of course, these are their ideas, not mine, I think there is much truth in them. It’s just more information to consider.

These are all good tools. More broadly, I believe that the real way to put yourself to the test is the aliveness methodology. When you work out "alive" against resisting partners with energy, timing, and motion in the way that Matt Thornton has beautifully described on his site, and which I've linked a few times in a few threads, then this will bring you face to face with the truth. A good start may be
1) spar with at least moderate contact against people from other studios
2) try it against a decent boxer and see if it works.

Matt Thornton is known for saying "if you truly understand aliveness, you'll never be fooled again. That may be an overstatement, but aliveness is probably the best mirror to hold to yourself to see if what you're doing is really True.

So I’ve written this in bits and pieces, it may contain some errors or gaps. If there’s something I said that doesn’t make sense, call me on it. I’ll either stand corrected or clarify. I was thinking of spending less time on MT lately, but seeing what's happened on this thread and how upset some people are getting, and how polarization is taking shape, I owe you at least this post.

[Black Bear]

LOL, I dropped 34 reputation points since about a week ago. Wow, people are mad!

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

LOL, I dropped 34 reputation points since about a week ago. Wow, people are mad!
I didn't have 34 to drop, but the ones I had are gone over this last week as well. Interesting phenom.

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Research by Bem on Cog-D: People forced to write essays on subjects they disagree with (i.e., ask college girls who oppose abortion to write essays on why it should remain legal) change their mind to be consistent with their behavior. Switch perspectives from pre-essay anti-AB status, to being proAB after essay completion. One of the reasons why my McDojo is better than yours? Hmmm.

[Black Bear]

I believe that Bem advocated an alternative to cog-d which was called "self-perception theory". Very similar idea, just different mechanism. But your example is very valid I think.

I didn't have 34 rep points before, but now I'm at -20!

[Brother John]

I think you meant to say innovation would be a way to decrease cognitive diossonance. CD might be characterized in this context as the ambilalence one experiences when some part of their system lets them down.

No not really. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. To my understanding (I also majored in psych) cognitive dissonance occurs when you are forced into experiencing something new or some thing familiar delt with in new ways. Basically being forced to deal with something new and unfamiliar.

I'm not sure what ambilalence is. Could be part of the .50cent wording that's been bandied about recently... or maybe just a typo. I'm one to talk...I do that all the time. IF you meant 'ambivalence' and are refering to me or what Iv'e said ...I don't have any. I also don't understand the part about a "system" letting anyone down and the cross training part.
If you are talking about me and my sideline pursuit of Jujutsu...
Sure; I'll experience some CD if I begin to cross train.
The only "IF" is IF I can find a dojo in my area.
Currently
No


Your Brother (Whos not Ambivalent...I just have gas)
John

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

It was a typo, it was meant to be ambivalence (sp?), and it was not referring to you, but to the idea of a state of anxiety (psychodynamic word) experienced whil in a state of cognitive dissonance (cog-B word).

Bear...right about BEM; it's been years, but I remember digging up his other published research in prep for an experiemnt we were going to conduct and submit to JPSP, and getting the impression that he was a Cog-psych proponent looking for a way to be different, so renamed it. (kinda fitting for an MA forum in a way). But as I said, it's been a long time, and have since checked out fo the behavioral sciences and into physical med.

Tchuss!

D.

[Black Bear]

Wie gehts?

I think the idea of self-perception theory is that that bothersome state of cog-d does not occur, but the person observes their own behaviour and makes an inference from it ("Hmm, I guess I support abortion" or "Hmm, I got pistacchio ice cream. I guess I like pistacchio ice cream.") the same way they'd make an inference about someone else from observing THEIR behaviour.

Bem's good. He's not a mooch.

Some research suggests s-p theory holds for things that the person doesn't attach a lot of importance to, whereas cog-d theory holds for things that the person really feels matters a lot. Either way, we see beliefs change to fit behaviour.

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Wie gehts?

I think the idea of self-perception theory is that that bothersome state of cog-d does not occur, but the person observes their own behaviour and makes an inference from it ("Hmm, I guess I support abortion" or "Hmm, I got pistacchio ice cream. I guess I like pistacchio ice cream.") the same way they'd make an inference about someone else from observing THEIR behaviour.

Bem's good. He's not a mooch.

Some research suggests s-p theory holds for things that the person doesn't attach a lot of importance to, whereas cog-d theory holds for things that the person really feels matters a lot. Either way, we see beliefs change to fit behaviour.
My exposure to Bem was in the context of exploring Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy as one of several possible compliance gaining tools for application in a social persuasion campaign involving confederates and an unsuspecting public. For our purposes, his theory was lumped in with Cog-D in the context of re-packaging dystonic information regarding self-concept in order to decrease anxiety produced by apparent discrepencies between self-concept and behaviour. Other models being employed in the experiment included some components of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Locus of Control, and some others, to see if correlations could be made between how certain personality profiles would respond to persuasive campaigns based on multiple layer interactions between these variables. (i.e, if we get Hi-dog, externally referenced S's to engage in counter-attitudinal advocacy, but manipulate the anxiety levels associated with potential outcomes of changes in perspectives (via positive or negative alter-casting), will that yield different, predictable results than with a different constellation of applied influences? There were multiple variables to control for among the different groups (i.e., lo-dog, internal or external, etc.), with a lot of different stages (One supposedly unrelated experiement involving taking Rotter and CPI, another taking various other inventories, blah, blah, blah)...just grew to be too complex for the time and funding we had. But the mish-mosh of ideas made for an intriguing pie in the sky.

I know it's sloppy and vague, but I haven't thought about it since 88. Just been rolling around in the back of my mind since this thread went into the direction of cog psych. theory.

I got out of psych because the idea of objectively evaluating subjective experience struck me as an odd & oxymoronic obsession for so many to invest in -- including myself. But I remain an avid reader of the field. Once in psych (seriously), always in psych. The influence and persuasion stuff came in real handy in sales, but I'm sure that wouldn't have pleased my old profs and mentors.

D.

[loki09789]

My exposure to Bem was in the context of exploring Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy as one of several possible compliance gaining tools for application in a social persuasion campaign involving confederates and an unsuspecting public. For our purposes, his theory was lumped in with Cog-D in the context of re-packaging dystonic information regarding self-concept in order to decrease anxiety produced by apparent discrepencies between self-concept and behaviour. Other models being employed in the experiment included some components of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Locus of Control, and some others, to see if correlations could be made between how certain personality profiles would respond to persuasive campaigns based on multiple layer interactions between these variables. (i.e, if we get Hi-dog, externally referenced S's to engage in counter-attitudinal advocacy, but manipulate the anxiety levels associated with potential outcomes of changes in perspectives (via positive or negative alter-casting), will that yield different, predictable results than with a different constellation of applied influences? There were multiple variables to control for among the different groups (i.e., lo-dog, internal or external, etc.), with a lot of different stages (One supposedly unrelated experiement involving taking Rotter and CPI, another taking various other inventories, blah, blah, blah)...just grew to be too complex for the time and funding we had. But the mish-mosh of ideas made for an intriguing pie in the sky.

I know it's sloppy and vague, but I haven't thought about it since 88. Just been rolling around in the back of my mind since this thread went into the direction of cog psych. theory.

I got out of psych because the idea of objectively evaluating subjective experience struck me as an odd & oxymoronic obsession for so many to invest in -- including myself. But I remain an avid reader of the field. Once in psych (seriously), always in psych. The influence and persuasion stuff came in real handy in sales, but I'm sure that wouldn't have pleased my old profs and mentors.

D.

I am distantly following your posting KK..., could you dumbie it down some, or give an layman's example of what you are describing for me. It sounds like it relates to class management and dealing with students in productive ways..... but with more possible insight.

I have to agree with your oxymoronic ref. between objective/subjective. I think this could be useful understanding when dealing with people in general. Has it helped with your bedside manner at all/or as an instructor?

[loki09789]

"One of the things I learned with my psychology and through the people I work with, if you wish to discuss topics, know your "audience". "

For some reason, I was thinking about this "know thy audience" axium that has come up on MT in the past many times. CeCei, not picking on you specificially by any means, just using the quote to illustrate my point.

In English Language Arts (no longer just called "English" like when I was in school) there is the idea of weakening your stance by constantly dumbing it down, over explaining with phrases that could be expressed more simply with one or two words.... State it simply, directly. The audience in this forum is far too broad to 'know' it or to be able to effectively explain things consisely and clearly everytime. In a one way communication process, like speeches/essays..., the lack of interaction makes tone VERY significant because there is no way to further explain anything. It is as it is. In an interactive medium like this the 'know thy audience' comment is less critical, in comparison (PLEASE don't think this means that I am for disregarding audience awareness), since anyone of us can write back and say "huh?" whenever we want clarification.

On the same point, I have noticed that I, personally, don't really use the IMHO/IMO comments too often based on the same training of communication. I am the one making the statement/presenting the point. My name, as author, is right there with the statement, so it should be safely assumed that it is an IMO statement - unless I make some kind of referance or quote use. I have noticed the IMO/IMHO functioning more as a demonstration of humility (sometimes false) than as a citation of you as author of the idea.

I am of the opinion (oops, there's my IMO/IMHO quota for the month) that my fellow posters are confident persons in their own right and don't require pro forma demonstrations of humility in order to feel that they are not being lorded over. There have been many an inflammatory/bold statements that were made confidently but with the IMHO/IMO humility demonstration as an attempt to soften the blow. In that capacity, it doesn't work.

Sorry for being off topic, but I wanted to get that off my chest and it wasn't deep enough to warrant a thread of its own.

[Ceicei]

Loki,

You've made several excellent points. Thank you.

Even with a very broad variety of people on a board like this, it would make sense to express as clearly so to be understood by as many people as possible. To have a person answer with "huh?" too many times diminishes the message somewhat and often serves to highlight the "intelligent factor" more than is necessary on both sides. Focus should be on the subject matter more than on the exercise of trying to understand what is said and hoping to form an "intelligent enough" response. To do so reminds me vaguely of the olden "chest thumping" rituals of proving "who's better".

Granted, this inherit need among certain individuals cannot be suppressed. In fact, to do so may then lose the opportunity of viewing with a different fresh perspective, even though it may take extra effort for some.

- Ceicei

[Black Bear]

KKK, wow, that's pretty ambitious, kind of a comprehensive approach to counterattitudinal persuasion. But you're darn right it'd take money. I personally found that research wasn't that gratifying. It had its moments, but it could be tedious, and I'd be just as happy being spoon-fed the findings from a journal, and just spending my life helping people.

Your point is taken about the paradox of objectively studying subjective phenomena. But of course, we have to do it still.

Regards,
BB

[Black Bear]

loki, you are correct, yet these silly hedges, "IMO", etc. are necessary because the internet is full of easily offended idiots. They're social lubricants.

You post good information loki, and it's nice too that you don't grease it up the way some people do. Very matter-of-fact.

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I second that motion...even though it will undoubtedly cost me brownie points.

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Loki,

You've made several excellent points. Thank you.

Even with a very broad variety of people on a board like this, it would make sense to express as clearly so to be understood by as many people as possible. To have a person answer with "huh?" too many times diminishes the message somewhat and often serves to highlight the "intelligent factor" more than is necessary on both sides. Focus should be on the subject matter more than on the exercise of trying to understand what is said and hoping to form an "intelligent enough" response. To do so reminds me vaguely of the olden "chest thumping" rituals of proving "who's better".

Granted, this inherit need among certain individuals cannot be suppressed. In fact, to do so may then lose the opportunity of viewing with a different fresh perspective, even though it may take extra effort for some.

- Ceicei
*thumping chest mindlessly* What are you trying to say?