How we learn (and teach) [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

View Full Version : How we learn (and teach)

brianhunter

07-27-2002, 02:13 PM

Me and a good friend (Jeff) where talking about how people learn and how we are so different in learning (almost exact opposites to be frank).

I have taught High School art (substitue teaching) and the D.A.R.E. curriculum (5th graders) for a couple of years I have learned several tools to help communicate to the different types of learners; Auditory, Visual, and Kinestetic. Alot of these methods or concepts i think would apply in teaching Kenpo.

What methods of training or teaching have you guys tried to appeal to all 3 learning types and and how successful have you been at getting your students to combine better ways of learning themselves? For instance Im more auditory and Visual as opposed to kinesthetic and Im really working on that.

Anything would be a help in many aspects.

brianhunter

07-27-2002, 05:46 PM

Buehler???.....Buehler??? Ferris Buehler???!?

Fry???...Fry??...Cameron Fry????

matthewgreenland

07-28-2002, 07:55 AM

I like all methods -

However- my favorite - is to FEEL it. Especially techs.

satans.barber

07-28-2002, 09:30 AM

I like to watch senseis doing a technique on one person slowly, and talking me through what they're doing as then do it; then I like to watch it a bit faster to get the rhythm of it.

I find it hard to learn from either people doing things on air, or from books/websites, it just doesn't stick!

I also like to sit back and watch a hall full of people sparring, you can learn loads that way. Then people are shocked when you block all their favourite moves and exploit all their weaknesses :)

Ian.

lifewise

07-28-2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by satans.barber

I like to watch senseis doing a technique on one person slowly, and talking me through what they're doing as then do it; then I like to watch it a bit faster to get the rhythm of it.

This works for me too.:asian:

jeffkyle

07-29-2002, 02:04 PM

All three are needed to enhance the learning process effectively. There are some that can figure things out by the individual one of the 3. But for the most part it is good to try to get all three involved when teaching someone. Tell them about it, show them how it works, and then have then perform it for themselves. and not only that but with repitition of course.
I personally like to see something done, then feel how it works by having it done to me, and by me doing it to someone else.

Sigung86

07-29-2002, 07:33 PM

So ... We have been rummaging in the NLP bag o' tricks? eh???

Dan

Rob_Broad

07-29-2002, 11:11 PM

To feel is to believe

brianhunter

07-30-2002, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Sigung86

So ... We have been rummaging in the NLP bag o' tricks? eh???

Dan

You lost me there Mr. Farmer

Sigung86

07-30-2002, 10:02 AM

NeuroLinguistic Programming. One of the fundamental precepts is the three methods of learning or absorbing data from your model of reality. Great books out there on it and it really does help with your teaching abilities. Look for a few titles by Richard Bandler. There's lots of stuff on the WWW about it.

It started out as a computer study and they found ... Hey! This is like human beings. It's a great tool for psychology and communication, and understanding people's paradigm of reality and how to teach and simply communicate.

Take care,

Dan

jeffkyle

07-30-2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Sigung86

NeuroLinguistic Programming. One of the fundamental precepts is the three methods of learning or absorbing data from your model of reality. Great books out there on it and it really does help with your teaching abilities. Look for a few titles by Richard Bandler. There's lots of stuff on the WWW about it.

It started out as a computer study and they found ... Hey! This is like human beings. It's a great tool for psychology and communication, and understanding people's paradigm of reality and how to teach and simply communicate.

Take care,

Dan

That is pretty cool. Actually i didn't know about any of that from learning it from another source. Plain ol' experience and lots of thought taught me that. :)

Goldendragon7

07-30-2002, 06:11 PM

Sigung86

07-30-2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by jeffkyle

That is pretty cool. Actually i didn't know about any of that from learning it from another source. Plain ol' experience and lots of thought taught me that. :)

This is a good thing... Now go get a couple of NLP text books and see how to apply it quickly, easily, and watch the effectiveness of your teaching increase greatly! Like Dennis indicated. There have been lots of advancements in it. No sense trying to re-invent the wheel...

Dan

jeffkyle

07-30-2002, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

:)

Well thank you! It is alot warmer here, though, than what i am used to!

jeffkyle

07-30-2002, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Sigung86

This is a good thing... Now go get a couple of NLP text books and see how to apply it quickly, easily, and watch the effectiveness of your teaching increase greatly! Like Dennis indicated. There have been lots of advancements in it. No sense trying to re-invent the wheel...

Dan

I totally agree. And according to Mr. C's statement i should just hop online and check it out. :)

Goldendragon7

07-30-2002, 11:33 PM

always try to keep current with material that may enhance your teaching or learning abilities.

:asian:

KenpoTess

08-02-2002, 12:25 PM

Repetition.. and then some.. I can watch someone do a tec and until I do it myself.. I'm rather lost.. so I do it over and over until my muscle memory recall remembers it.. I kinda envy people who can see something once and repeat it immediately.. but I'm so Right brained I don't have that gift. It's like looking at a painting.. some see the whole picture .. I see the way it was painted .. brush strokes, lighting, colors and textures.. It's the same in AK .. I don't just 'see' and 'do' .. I have to 'Experience' before I can understand.. if that makes any sense. .:)

Goldendragon7

08-02-2002, 03:56 PM

Pete and Repeat were in a boat ......... Pete fell out who was left?

(repeat & answer the question over and over)

:rofl:

Nightingale

08-05-2002, 12:48 PM

I try to hit all three major learning styles when I teach a technique...

First I demonstrate (visual) and tell (auditory) the students exactly what I'm doing.

Next, I have them model me, step by step (kinesthetic) and make physical (move a hand or foot to proper placement) corrections when necessary.

I teach katas the same way. I demonstrate and tell a kata and have the student follow me. We do step one (short one, step back and block) then go back, repeat one, and add step two (step back, block, step back, block), then go back, do step one, two and then add three, until we get all the way to the end, or to a point where I think things will be forgotten if we go on because of too much information.

A good trick is not to teach too much in one day. If you think about it, write the number 7 in the middle of a piece of paper... you have no problem remembering the number you wrote, right? now fill up a whole line with random numbers.... can't remember them all, right? The human brain, especially now with television and all, is trained to work in small "sound bites" of information. if you tell them one or two new things, they're more likely to remember it, than if they learn five or six new techniques in one night....

myself, if I learn one or two techs in a night, I know em forever. If I learn more than four, I forget EVERYTHING that was taught that evening... its too much information to process. However, that's just me. I know some people who can learn a lot in one sitting, however, they are exceptional.

-N-

Goldendragon7

08-05-2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by nightingale8472
If I learn one or two techs in a night, I know em forever.

If I learn more than four, I forget EVERYTHING that was taught that evening...

Slow to learn.......... Slow to Forget.......

Earn what you learn.

:asian:

jeffkyle

08-05-2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

Slow to learn.......... Slow to Forget.......

Earn what you learn.

:asian:

Quick to learn........What was the rest?? I forgot!

Blindside

08-05-2002, 03:40 PM

Regardless of how you learn I think it is important to mix up the order while learn a physical function.

For example if you are going to teach a student two techniques on a given night, instead of teaching one, having them repeat it 20 times then go onto number two. Teach them the first technique, have them repeat it five times, then teach the second technique and have them repeat it five times. Then have them review the techniques in random order.

Two studies that I know of show that "blocking" newly learned motor skills gives the impression of immediate skill gain, but mixing up the pattern when learning is more effective for long-term retention. Mixing up the pattern causes the student to "reboot" each time they begin the technique which ingrains the technique a little better. It works well for me.

Just my two cents.

Lamont

Rich Parsons

02-11-2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Nightingale
I try to hit all three major learning styles when I teach a technique...

First I demonstrate (visual) and tell (auditory) the students exactly what I'm doing.

Next, I have them model me, step by step (kinesthetic) and make physical (move a hand or foot to proper placement) corrections when necessary.

I teach katas the same way. I demonstrate and tell a kata and have the student follow me. We do step one (short one, step back and block) then go back, repeat one, and add step two (step back, block, step back, block), then go back, do step one, two and then add three, until we get all the way to the end, or to a point where I think things will be forgotten if we go on because of too much information.

A good trick is not to teach too much in one day. If you think about it, write the number 7 in the middle of a piece of paper... you have no problem remembering the number you wrote, right? now fill up a whole line with random numbers.... can't remember them all, right? The human brain, especially now with television and all, is trained to work in small "sound bites" of information. if you tell them one or two new things, they're more likely to remember it, than if they learn five or six new techniques in one night....

myself, if I learn one or two techs in a night, I know em forever. If I learn more than four, I forget EVERYTHING that was taught that evening... its too much information to process. However, that's just me. I know some people who can learn a lot in one sitting, however, they are exceptional.

-N-

Hey Nightingale,

I try to follow similar ways of doing it also.

Yet, I have with myself and others that have dyslexia or other issues, they sometimes learn better by having the kinesthetic action applied to them. I know this could be coverd in Visual demonstration, so I am not nit picking. Just adding, my point of view. Which most will tell you is not the norm :)

:asian:

8253

02-11-2004, 11:41 PM

I like all kinds of methods because it can expand your learning ability if you learn to concentrate on the different aspects of the different methods.

Rick Wade

02-12-2004, 05:13 PM

I'm a rock and it takes me forever to get something. But when it is in my arsenal it there and I won't forget it.

Rick

jayfrasier

02-12-2004, 05:57 PM

Old Fat Kenpoka

02-12-2004, 06:00 PM

In addition to how we learn, an important question is who do we learn from:

A) Our teachers
B) Our peers
C) Our students

When we know nothing, we learn everything from our teachers. When we know a little, we learn more from our peers.
When we think we know it all, we see all of our weaknesses manifest in our students.

This is my paraphrase of some wisdom from the Rabbi Hillel.

rmcrobertson

02-12-2004, 08:18 PM

Sorry, but I agree. NLP is mostly doody--and it can be traced back to some of John W. Campbell's ideas in "Analog," magazine, ideas whose most-famous exponent is L. Ron Hubbard.

There's a lot of this, "multiple learning styles," in education these days, also. Problems are, a) it's based on some very-dubious "scientific studies," as well as some BIG logical leaps from solid scientific studies; b) it's become VERY chic, as well as very commercially and politically sucessful; c) it's all very well to talk about "different learning styles..." but the trouble is, this overlooks that you are not actually trying to teach people to do a whole bunch of different things.

For example, I--sorry--am pretty high off the bell curve on reading/writing/listening/interpretation skills. So, I am at home in a context that pays off on those skills--which academics do, and which most professional jobs do to some degree. Somebody who's classified as a "kinesthenic," learner, well, is just not going to succeed as, say, a newspaper editor. The aptitude doesn't match the skill set. And, society doesn't pay off on kinesthetic ability, unless you're an actor, dancer--or martial artist.

One of my attractions to kenpo is that there appears to be two missing patches in my brain. One is labelled, "kinesthetic perception," and the other, "spatial perception." Gosh.

And again I agree with Alan--sometimes, when I watch my students doing forms (another reason yet to have them!) I am fascinated by the spectacle of how much MY forms suck.

Oh well.

Old Fat Kenpoka

02-13-2004, 12:47 PM

I--sorry--am pretty high off the bell curve on reading/writing/listening/interpretation skills. Me too. Especially on multiple choice tests...ah, if life was as easy as fill-in-the bubble...

Got to tell this long little story about learning and teaching...
Back in the old days at my school...adults could become assistant instructors as early as Blue Belt. One of my first students was pretty talented. Got to Jr. Green, quit when he was still in Elementary school, came back about 10 years later when I was a Black Belt...

When I was a white belt, I had a problem with stance transitions: I didn't step through the center--I stepped around never leaving my horse and bow stances. My instructor had me break that habit by touching my heels during stance transitions. That broke the bow-leg effect, but created a kicking-myself-in-the-feet effect. The second bad habit was much easier to break.

Anyway, I used this same teaching method to correct the same problem on this talented kid. 10 years later, he was back and re-learning his material. Another Black Belt instructor was teaching his privates. He came to me and said: "hey this guy is doing something really weird in his stance transitions can you take a look?" Well holy sh**! The guy was touching his heels! Had to laugh at myself.

Ceicei

02-13-2004, 03:38 PM

I learn well visually, but not when the moves are simply "done in the air". I have see the moves done on another person to be able to internalize it and then to perform it by "feeling" (in other words, good firm contact), preferably with another person.

Once I get it all set in my mind and muscle memory, then I can practice the forms and the "in the air" work better.

:boing2:

- Ceicei

Black Bear

02-14-2004, 03:02 AM

jayfrasier is exactly correct. NLP is in practice a hodgepodge of behaviour mod, common sense, and a lot of hocus pocus about magic words and eye movements. Some of the stuff works, but it's all stuff that was empirically validated in other contexts. NLP as a body of work... is garbage.

Dominic Jones

02-18-2004, 10:52 PM

Hello
How to teach and how students learn is fascinating. Great topic.

There is a lot of information about how students teach and different ways to teach. I teach English and find the more I learn about Education the more it is applicable to how I teach kenpo.

One interesting man was a Russian named Lev Vygotsky, who talked about people learning in three zones (on a continuum).

Zone 1 - The I can do this Zone.
Zone 2 - The I can do this if somebody helps me Zone (Zone of Proximal Development)
Zone 3 - The I can not do this Zone

The quickest learning takes place in Zone 2. Zone 1 gives confidence at first, but then breeds teacher dependence. Zone 3 you just can’t do (yet!).

The idea is that as the student improves tasks (techniques/forms etc) move from Zone 2 to 1. Zone 3 becomes Zone 2 and new information becomes Zone 3.

The term "scaffolding" is used to describe how the teacher helps the student to complete Zone 2 tasks. Like stabilizers on a child’s bicycle. The effective teacher then knows how and when to remove their help (scaffolding) on the easier tasks and switch their help to the new tasks.

Other interesting, in my opinion, areas are:
Error correction
Teaching commands
Form versus Function versus Situation empathsis in teaching
Different Language varieties (doorman kenpo, self defence kenpo, competition kenpo, weapon kenpo etc...)　

Cheers Dom :asian:

TIGER DRAGON FIGHT

07-21-2004, 12:32 AM

i have to actually be doing the technique to really get a grasp on it. if its a short technique i can most of the time get it visually but when it comes a form or a techincal technique i have to have hands on experiance.

OC Kid

07-21-2004, 10:18 AM

I have to get to know my students and then I can tell if Im getting through to them. If yes continue, If not then try something else.

mj-hi-yah

07-21-2004, 11:34 AM

Rob Broad

07-21-2004, 04:50 PM

I can learn from any of the methods, but give the choice I prefer to feel.

pete

07-21-2004, 05:04 PM

if you hear it, you may be able to repeat it...
if you see it, you may be able to imitate it...
if you feel it, you may be able to ask the questions from which you may get the guidance to understand...

pete

mj-hi-yah

07-21-2004, 05:32 PM

I can learn from any of the methods, but give the choice I prefer to feel.You may likely be a Tactual learner.:asian:

Pete...nice!:)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

07-23-2004, 03:02 AM

I hope that no one will consider this to be a flame or anything. I just wanted to point out that not everyone accepts NLP as being valid. I have a good friend, Dr. Ray Hyman, who is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. He also taught at Harvard and is pretty famous among psychologists (he's been on tv hundreds of times and was on Dateline not too long ago). He was among a group hired by the military (the Army, I think) to evaluate different learning methodologies including NLP. Their research indicated that the "good stuff" in NLP is not exclusive to NLP (you can find it in other systems). And, what is exclusive to NLP was not supported by their research. So, the military decided not to adopt NLP in its training. You can read about this in a book titled "In the Mind's Eye." I don't have it here in my office so I can't give more details about the book right now. If anyone is more interested, I'd be happy to send them more info later. Please note that I am not that well-versed on NLP and am basing this on my conversations with Ray and from I remember from the book. Also, I do know that the visual, auditory, kinesthetic idea is NOT exclusive to NLP.

Jay Frasier
frasierj@lanecc.eduSorry I missed this thread while it was running. I both agree, and disagree with the criticisms of NLP. First off, it is not, by any stretch, an original work. It's one of the first examples of an "eclectic style" of psych. Of course, the founders don't want to admit that, but their libraries are packed with other peoples works, highlighted to the hilt, with clear influence on posited dieas.

Lack of research? There are a great many academic researchers who are NLP afficianados, who put NLP techs and apps through the rigors of research. However, due to the stigma associated with NLP, very few call it that. If you're name familiar, you see the research come out in peer reviewed journals in areas like Social Psych (JPSP for example), American Psythotherap., Speech Comm journals, Learning & Memory, Cog Psych, and Social Cognition.

Unfortunately, it has fragmented into so many splinters, that one must ask Doc's phrase, modified contenxually: 'Who's NLP?". There are New Age fruitcakes claiming NLP status & using it to explore past lives; performance coaching gurus who actually use the influence and persuasion components to trick crowds into buying their tapes; corporate training & development folks using it as an adjunct to training, as well as to behavioral modelling of retiring specialists so the data isn't lost; and some ivory tower university professors in the above mentioned departments who continue to refine the body of information, such that it has not been about eye movements for a very long time.

We used to have saying we opened our trainings with (to psychologists and psychiatrists)...half of the psych and academic community swears by it, and the other swears at it. It usually depends on what they've been exposed to. New Age mumbo-jumbo version? Early fascination with eye-accessing cues? (the academics pretty much lost intyerest when someone asked, "so what? How does this really help anything?").

When I taught 21-day certification trainings, I brought my 4-ft stack of copied journal articles, some of them supporting NLP assertions by closet enthusiasts in academia, others probably the seed info in early cog-b theory that Bandler, et al, ripped off heavily.

As far as one psych's opinion weighing more than anothers, that's always been a silly assertion...no 2 have felt the same way about a given thing since before Freud & Jung started off on their cross-country train trip, and the rift only widened since. There are so many different journals and disciplines, because of fundamental differences about causality (idiot-pathic/nome-pathetic?). Yet the overview texts for each are filled with quotes from thinkers and peer-reviewed articles that support the internal validity of their given positions, with an assumption of valid generalization (odd...it's a fallacy in logic, but the goal of any good microcosmic empirical study). The interesting thing NLP guys did was to initially say, "what if everybody was a little bit right, and instead of being exclusive, we were eclectic?". I.e, NLP is big on "framing and reframing", but cannot in a million years lay claim to originating the idea or its applications. NLP is big on applying information systems theory to cognition, but the quality research in this endeavor was never done by guys like Bandler, but rather Broadbent, and others (can you say, 'cognitive psychology'?).

Any of you EPAK guys upset about the Chinese K-fu that Parker incorporated over the years? What about his desire to apply logic and science to an artistic endeavor? Some experts in the martial arts say kenpo is slap-crap...they say they have their reasons...do you agree? Is their expert status, somehow, magically more or less important or valid than yours? Will any of this interfere with you using your skills and abilities in a fight when it comes down to it, or will you stop to question the validity of your counter, since it may not have come from a perfected lineage source dating back millennia?

I think that one of the reaons I've enjoyed reading so many of the criticisms of mainstream kenpo, is because they echo the same criticisms of mainstream NLP that I've heard & participated in over the years, and that are legitimate criticisms...but which do not apply to all NLP; I still cringe whenever someone starts to tell me they study(ied) NLP, because I'm sure they're going to launch into a McDojo version tirade, and what I learned as NLP is most certainly not what they learned as NLP. Not all kenpo is created equal. Guess what...same for NLP. Careful about that baby/bathwater thing.

D.

rmcrobertson

07-26-2004, 09:58 PM

Well, sorry, but....and I'm speaking as an educator....

First off, I have seen nothing whatsover to indicate that NLP is anything other than quackery, based on flimsy evidence and large, very large jumps from what science there is to some very weird conclusions. We simply don't have anything like enough knowledge of the brain, its function, and learning to draw any of these conclusions.

Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class.

Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?

In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.

Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.

All of this stuff is based on pseduo-science.

rmcrobertson

07-26-2004, 09:59 PM

mj-hi-yah

07-27-2004, 12:24 AM

Robert,
As always, I enjoyed your thought provoking post and interesting perspectives. First let me say don't apologize for your views. Let’s talk a bit about them though. I also speak as an educator. I can say from my perspective as a teacher that I agree with you on some points and perhaps disagree on others. I agree that often in education concepts are "repackaged" and reintroduced as new and innovative. A good example would be in teaching children to read. Phonics, after in some places being thrown out with the bath water, became rediscovered as the miracle cure to helping some learners in reading - nothing much new there.
As far as NLP goes I've not investigated or read anything much about it...I will keep an open mind there though. It seems worthy of exploration at least.

Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class. Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be? Knowing what I have found in my own experiences it is difficult to find common ground here. There is so much to this I could not possibly show the depth of it all in a forum like this. I can tell you that I have read tons of research on it, and tested it myself. I have personally tested my classes and have seen no evidence that learning style testing of today is racist in any way. Further, I have tested adults who are non-verbal learners and have found that it has nothing to do with their race. It has to do with how they, as individuals, perceive information and how best to meet the needs of individual students in a classroom or any learning environment. I’m not sure how well read you are on all of this, and I have not read the work you site here, but I imagine the material from the 1950's concerning learning styles and the advantages to understanding it have developed trememdously since that period. I will even go so far as to say that in the 1950's it's entirely possible that this concept initially may have developed to give advantages to certain groups. Public education in America has not always been equal opportunity. That is a known fact. I’m sure you are probably aware, this year happens to mark the 40th anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education. We have come a very very long way in 40 years…

In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.Without realizing it perhaps you make my point. Let me explain. Only 5 % of the population is purely Kinesthetic in their learning. In understanding learning styles we come to know that there are ways for the kinesthetic learner to perceive and input the same information that a visual learner for instance has little problems doing. This is because the act of reading is quite conducive to the visual learner, and as you point out is a fundamental skill which leads to a pay off in many schools and the job market. Visual learners often have an easier time excelling in these environments. The reason being that reading is a visual task. Kinesthetic learners are sometimes seen as “slower” learners by some, simply because using their eyes is not the channel through which they are able to perceive information, and most school learning is and remains dependent on reading. This is especially true of higher education, where learning needs more often go unaddressed and there is little multi-sensory presentation of material to be learned.

Often times Kinesthetic learners have been found to be hyperactive and may be found to have attention deficits. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is the schools that sometimes fail them for presenting material for them to learn in ways that they can not digest it. Kinesthetic learners absorb information best that is input through body movement (large muscle movement) as they interact with the space around them. They remember best what is done, not what is seen or heard. They learn best through experiential learning like science experiments, sports activities and field trips. They are the action students. In Changing the way they are taught you have a better chance of helping them to find success. I agree visualizations will not aid in the kinesthetic learner’s understanding. You, generically speaking, need to teach them through action. Here are a just few famous Kinesthetic learners…Mozart, Jim Carey, Whoopie Goldberg, Mariette Hartley & Robin Williams. All of these people are creative, innovative & successful.

Here is another example pertaining to different learning needs for people reading this post who are not in education… What does this word say when you attempt to read it? qnqqy
To a child with a learning disability like dyslexia this is one way that they might perceive the word puppy. Some children have difficulty with object permanence in their minds and letters that are perceived as stationary in the mind of the average person flip and turn when perceived by the dyslexic. Does this mean that this child is unable to learn or unintelligent? No. Some of our greatest minds in history like Albert Einstein were dyslexic. He and others like him just needed a different way to learn things. We understand so much more about it today.

Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano. You make my point very strongly here. However I prefer the term multiple intelligence. If you have not and are interested in exploring this further, check out the work of Howard Gardner. The reason Juan Serrano may excel in the Martial Arts may very likely be that he is a kinesthetic learner. Martial Arts are perfect for the kinesthetic learner, because the learning is performance based and not written. Yes we need to accept that we learn differently and value multiple intelligences in ourselves and others. You can write awesome essays because of the type of learner that you are. Written expression is a byproduct of your form of intelligence. In accepting the idea of understanding learning styles you are in fact embracing the knowledge that people are differently talented. Our learning needs and our talents are interconnected.
MJ :asian:

rmcrobertson

07-27-2004, 01:48 AM

Sure.

However, my points were accuracte.

1. I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while. There were responses to the idea that intelligence could be defined as some general, "g," going back into the 19th century; the criticism of the Binet/Stanford-Binet tests have been extant since at least the late 1940s.

2. It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.

3. I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies.

4. The fact of the matter is that the learned professions are all, in their ways, text-based. No read/write well, no get job as lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc.

5. Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be.

6. And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right. The ability to articulate and to comprehend issues is our hope. Acting them out--in whatever fashion--is not gonna git it.

7. "Diversity," was a great idea. Now, it is a capitalist idea.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

07-27-2004, 03:25 AM

I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while.

I mentioned in another post that NLP had nothing new to offer under the sun...just a repackaging of other peoples research and ideas, without credit being given where credits due. Worst abuse of this I've seen? Tony Robbins claiming HE has discovered 6 "laws of Social Influence", then proceeds to teach Robert Cialdini's Social Persuasion Theory regarding effects of implied causation on compliance; bandwagon effects; commitment and consisteny; etc. (all found in Cialdini's books and JPSP articles). Cialdini = well published Soc. Psych prof at Tempe.

At the house of one of the NLP core founders, flipped through his library to find journal articles, position papers, etc., on early information systems theory. Oddly, the books and articles pre-dated the inception of NLP proper, and pre-echoed seminal ideas. To clarify, what they have done is to bring several otherwise competing, but complementary ideas, into one basket. What they failed to do was maintain academic integrity, and cite references. I guess the zeitgeist in the early 70's was one of exclusivity and barriers btw approaches, and eclecticism was deemed heretical. Now, steal ideas and claim them as your own...nobody cares.

It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.

Isn't this a generalization? One of the major logical fallacies presented in Irving Copi's work? If true here, true there, even though no data exists to support it? That doesn't mean it isn't true, or at least has a modicum of truth in it, but not all developments in social science or the humanities are developed to help the man keep the masses down. Generally, aside from gross mistakes in sample selection, much of the research done at the university level in social science and psych are conducted by left-leaning profs, with personal social agendas to support.

I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies.

I'm truly sorry,. Nothing worse in the world then sitting through hours of idiots spewing half-baked ideas through dullard minds. My first exposures to NLP were in these scenarios, and I was about ready to fold the book on a heap-o-crap, when I lucked out to discover there were intradisciplinary, factional differences, and that some actually adopted an academic stance to their research (or, at least, to hijacking others' research for their own purposes). But, unfortunately, most of the mainstream stuff was, is, and will remain, crap. As for the poorly designed studies, much of the late 80's/early and mid-90's material researching visuo-spatial workbench, related SPAM activity, and priming effects on memory lexicons was feuled by "unconscious processing" and sub-modality assertions made in NLP. Subjected to the rigors of the empirical method, peer-reviewed, etc. I'm sure at least some of them managed to get by with more than junk logic and poor design.

Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be.

Amen.

And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right.

Read the colllected works of Freud at 12-14 y/o, and agree whole-heartedly. Most (my guess, 90+%) of people who criticize Freud's works and understandings of the nature of consciousness have never read his works, but only pass on vissictitudes they learned from their J.C. psych 101 profs...who never read Freud either.

"Diversity," was a great idea. Now, it is a capitalist idea.
Best laid plans?

There are true professors in Kenpo, and there are clowns in Kenpo. If someones exposure is to a clown, and they take the position "kenpo guys suck; kenpo is a lousy MA", you, as a Tatum student, know this is not an accurate blanket statement.

So, some college prof has to sit through multiple pseudo-science preso's of NLP, leading him to draw his own conclusions. You do the math. Are all generalizations always accurate?

Respects,

Dave

Maltair

07-27-2004, 06:02 AM

I also like to sit back and watch a hall full of people sparring, you can learn loads that way. Then people are shocked when you block all their favourite moves and exploit all their weaknesses :)

Ian.

This is something I would like to learn how to do. I've seen people that have watched someone spar for 1 min, then will stop the match jump in and say watch this, and do just what you said, block all their favourite moves and exploit all their weaknesses :)

I've been sparring with the same guys for awhile now, and I couldn't even tell you if they start right side back or what. I think it is becuase I've been concintrating on my own moves and not tryng to learn opp moves.

mj-hi-yah

07-27-2004, 10:15 AM

1. I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while. There were responses to the idea that intelligence could be defined as some general, "g," going back into the 19th century; the criticism of the Binet/Stanford-Binet tests have been extant since at least the late 1940s.I don't completely disagree here. My point is that what was generally accepted 64 years ago does not necessarily hold true today. We’ve made many advances in education.

2. It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.I could not agree more about IQ, and this is the reason for exploring, teaching to and valuing multiple intelligences. This is not based on IQ, it counters it, and in fact it is the result of the desire to assess students without such bias.

3. I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies. I understand your skepticism in terms of research as yes you can often find many studies on almost any subject that are faulty, ill designed and slanted to prove a point. I believe that research should be subject to scrutiny. In my graduate studies I examined much of it. There is valid and widely respected research on this subject today.

4. The fact of the matter is that the learned professions are all, in their ways, text-based. No read/write well, no get job as lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc. No doubt visual learners have an advantage in most school settings, Many educators have visual preferences and will present material in ways that suit their own personal needs, this is mostly due to a lack of understanding concerning learning styles and what they are meant to achieve. Visual learners may do well as doctors, but could also be more suited and be more fulfilled working as graphic artists, or with computers. It is the auditory learner who is more suited to a profession in law because of their need to verbalize and the tactual learner who may excel in psychology, because they are intuitive to how people feel and learn through feeling. Understanding our learning styles can help us to compensate for learning that does not suit our needs, and in addition it can help us to recognize our strengths and weaknesses and work to develop them both.

5. Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be. Define value. Is it based on how much money a person makes or what they contribute to society? Remember a purely kinesthetic learner is only 5% of the population. Their unique skills and abilities make them suited for the highest paying jobs in our society today. They are the professional athletes and their salaries far exceed those in the “learned professions.”It’s undeniable, for example, Alonzo Mourning signed with the Miami Heat for a seven year deal worth about $112 million and the President of the United States makes $400,000 a year. Which do you think is more valued? The professional athlete’s salary is not paralleled in the “professional world”.There is a reason we have amazing people achieving great things and/or becoming quite successful in other professions such as Martial Arts, acting and sports.

6. And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right. The ability to articulate and to comprehend issues is our hope. Acting them out--in whatever fashion--is not gonna git it. LOL :D I love my :angel:mother. I’ll leave this one to the psychologists to hash out…

MJ :asian:

rmcrobertson

07-27-2004, 12:52 PM

Read through all of Freud--all thirty-plus volumes of the collected works--at 12 or 14 years of age? Hm. Remarkable.

"Left-leaning professors?" Hm. Remarkable. I couldn't tell you what the politics were of my profs in lab and experimental psychology. I quite agree that a lot of the "diversity," jazz is driven by folks who claim to have a liberal social agenda--but my point was that this "liberal," agenda is in fact simply another example of capitalism shifting to new markets.

All--I repeat, ALL--of the currently-popular stuff I've seen that relates "better," understandings of the brain to specific ways of teaching remains well in advance of the actual science. Of course, there are some good things coming out--but by and large, the "research," featured in departments of education is laughable.

In part, it's often--not always, but often--laughable because it's simply badly-designed experiment rigged in support of particular agendas. Some of these are, "liberal," such as the stuff about diversity. Many of the agendas, though, are fundamentally corporatist--note all the jazz about, "more-efficient," teaching.

Curiously enough, NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm.

And what's wrong with it? Look at the post below: so-and-so would be better off as a lawyer, so-and-so as this, so-and-so as that. Such claims are based on very iffy science...and, they feed precisely into the silly, dangerous fascination with "scientific," and, "objective," testing that's driving so much of K-12 education these days.

I agree with a lot of the last two poster's claims, as well as their general approaches. However, I'm afraid I ain't buying the NLP, the latest in a long chain of American schemes for taylorizing the long slow, difficult process of education. Nor am I going with the testing sorcery.

Why not just fund the damn educational system decently, give teachers decent training, set up society so that kids have a chance to learn, and let the chips fall? I'd thought that was the American way....

But as in martial arts, the Big Secret is this: there are no shortcuts.

mj-hi-yah

07-27-2004, 03:11 PM

Read through all of Freud--all thirty-plus volumes of the collected works--at 12 or 14 years of age? Hm. Remarkable. I've taken more than my fair share of psychology courses. I am well aware of the Oedipus/Electra complex. Freud is certainly interesting, and he has made many valuable contributions. I just don't believe in blaming the parents for all that goes wrong in a person's adult life. :asian:

"Left-leaning professors?" Hm. Remarkable. I couldn't tell you what the politics were of my profs in lab and experimental psychology. I quite agree that a lot of the "diversity," jazz is driven by folks who claim to have a liberal social agenda--but my point was that this "liberal," agenda is in fact simply another example of capitalism shifting to new markets. This seems like a generalization here. Jazz may or may not attract people who are liberal in their political affiliations. However, I agree that there are special interest groups who sometimes drive research to protect their interests in all areas environmental, educational etc., I don't see a connection between understanding how we learn best and politics though. I think despite anyone's political agenda they can benefit from understanding their own learning needs.

All--I repeat, ALL--of the currently-popular stuff I've seen that relates "better," understandings of the brain to specific ways of teaching remains well in advance of the actual science. Of course, there are some good things coming out--but by and large, the "research," featured in departments of education is laughable. All is too broad for me to agree on - some certainly is and some isn't.

Curiously enough, NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm. I would say progressive elitist schools are working in this direction, such as The Ross School of East Hamptom on Long Island.

And what's wrong with it? Look at the post below: so-and-so would be better off as a lawyer, so-and-so as this, so-and-so as that. Such claims are based on very iffy science...and, they feed precisely into the silly, dangerous fascination with "scientific," and, "objective," testing that's driving so much of K-12 education these days.Not really better off more a way to help students find things that they might enjoy doing in life because it suits their way of learning and being. Jim Carey is a known kinesthetic learner and is all about movement. He might have become a doctor if that's what he desired, but he might have had to work extra hard to learn in ways that didn't suit his perceptual strengths though. Being a physical actor more closely matches his natural abilities and talents. It suits him the same as writing suits you.

I agree with a lot of the last two poster's claims, as well as their general approaches. :)

Why not just fund the damn educational system decently, give teachers decent training, set up society so that kids have a chance to learn, and let the chips fall? I'd thought that was the American way....Agreed, that the government needs to value education more through funding.
But as in martial arts, the Big Secret is this: there are no shortcuts.I don't see that as being a secret in education either. I believe in having clearly defined high expectations for children's learning. I just think the more we know about how we learn the better.

MJ :asian:

rmcrobertson

07-27-2004, 09:54 PM

Well, jes' to keep the ball bouncin'...

First off, if you think Freud claimed that your parents were at fault for everything that happens to you, or that you do in later life, you not only haven't read the collected works, you haven't read very much Freud at all.

Second, I'd love to see the, "scientific," basis for this enormous shift in teaching methods. Because the bases I've seen so far, well, "junk science," is the first term that comes to mind..."Jim Carey is a well-known kinesthetic learner?" Are we taking his word for this? Let me also make my point explicit: the elite schools and research universities won't be doing this stuff. They will be passing on knowledge, taught in pretty much the same old same old, and it will help reinforce the way this country gives poor and working class students and more and more impoverished education.

It's fashionable claptrap, mostly, taught in ed schools that all too often are primary sources of what exactly is wrong with the ed system....fer cryin' out loud, these are the folks who get PhDs in, "Educational Leadership," and end up in positions of authority in schools without ever having taught, or studied anything other than educational leadership.

As for the silly comment about having a 180 IQ (as IF) and being "Caucasian," well--in the unlikely event that this actually was the writer's tested score--if anything proves the worthlessness of IQ testing, suggests the way that intelligence indeed has many different facets, and underscores why ideas like, "multiculturalism," are so important, that post does.

What you're really talking about is the adaptation of the educational system to the needs of the contemporary marketplace. This has very little to do with "education," as such---and a great deal to do with justifying what the market wants.

mj-hi-yah

07-27-2004, 10:48 PM

First off, if you think Freud claimed that your parents were at fault for everything that happens to you, or that you do in later life, you not only haven't read the collected works, you haven't read very much Freud at all. Oh gosh sorry, that was meant as more of a joke, I guess it didn't translate well... :lookie: Freudian slip? :uhyeah: (uh...that's a joke too)

....fer cryin' out loud, these are the folks who get PhDs in, "Educational Leadership," and end up in positions of authority in schools without ever having taught, or studied anything other than educational leadership. Ok well this here explains a lot about our differing opinions and the futility of this discussion. I happen to respect the work and contribution of people with PhDs in Educational Leadership.

I'll pick up this ball again if anyone is interested in the implications of different learning styles in the dojo...

rmcrobertson

07-28-2004, 01:34 PM

Like who, exactly? An example or two, please.

The fundamental problem is this: the claim that there are, "different learning styles," cannot be taken for granted. The scientific evidence is shaky at best, the current fad is not to be trusted, and then the whole claim has some unpleasant social implications.

It's an old idea, and perhaps a useful guide. But in martial arts, why not just worry about responding to different students differently? Why demand "scientific," explanations, well in advance of actual science, simply to do that?

I don't feel qualified to pass these judgments about students, and I have the degrees and the teaching experience. So....

mj-hi-yah

07-28-2004, 04:10 PM

Like who, exactly? An example or two, please.I'm sorry Robert, huuuuh....but this is getting draining don't you agree? I don't really like sparring outside of the dojo. I came here to share information not defend the entire educational system. If I had to name two important ones to me I'd say Gardner and Bloom. I like the publication Educational Leadership, mostly because they promote scrutiny of research. For the most part though I just really respect people who further their learning. To me a PhD is a symbol of someone who has made a commitment to their field of study and spent a lot of time and energy on their subject matter. That in my mind does qualify a person to be eligible leaders in their field.

The fundamental problem is this: the claim that there are, "different learning styles," cannot be taken for granted. The scientific evidence is shaky at best, the current fad is not to be trusted, and then the whole claim has some unpleasant social implications. Do you know how you learn best Robert? When you get directions to go somewhere do you write them down or need to look at a map, or highlight the map, or can you just listen to someone telling you how to get there and remember it? This is about helping people understand their own needs and meeting them. It's not that complicated. I see no negative social implications for knowing this about ourselves. I see it as useful to us as learners. In Kenpo there is much to learn and remember. It's a personal tool to aid in that and that is all.

It's an old idea, and perhaps a useful guide. But in martial arts, why not just worry about responding to different students differently? Why demand "scientific," explanations, well in advance of actual science, simply to do that? Respond differently how? You really need at least some sort of framework for that.

I don't feel qualified to pass these judgments about students, and I have the degrees and the teaching experience. So....You really need not pass judgment on anyone with this. This is simply about helping people to learn more effectively.

Kenpomachine

07-28-2004, 04:16 PM

NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm.
I'm a kinesthetic learner and I know there are many resorts to learn in an otherwise seemingly visual learner world. I.e., when I couldn't attend a class, I would copy the notes of a friend to get the material down, even if I had it xeroxed. Or I'll write down notes of my own before an exam. I didn't remember the teacher lecturing or what I read, but the material I wrote. And I hate it when everybody wanted dates and numbers, and names.

Most of the comments disregarding a style of learning come not from the way of learning, but of the way of treating people. If you talk to someone as if he/she were stupid for a long time, or you lower your expectations towards him/her, regular folks lower their expectations as well.

I see it more as a problem of attitude than a problem of learning style. By the way, I believe that we wouldn't have so many educational problems if we gave children a set of known rules to stick too, so they know there are limits. And that damage has been made by pedagoges... at least in Spain.

First thing a kid'll do when you enter a class, both at school and in the MA for the first time? Look for the limits.

FWIW, I hold a degree in Agricultural Eng, and an MSc in Marketing.

Michael Billings

07-28-2004, 04:40 PM

I don't think you should have to defend your stance by citing your Ejukatunal degrees. Life experience, 20 years in the military may well substitute for a degree in Learning Theory ... or not. We should neither have to justify our qualifications to express an opinion, nor should you assume that your "degree" qualifies you singularly as the "authority' on this.

I accept, that in Robert's experience, given his vocation and passion - appropriate weight could be given to his position. Likewise mj-hi-yah or Kenpomachine's experience carries weight based on their life experiences, as does mine.

It is the whole "sparring" outside the dojo remark that brings this to a head for me. This thread is however, How WE learn and teach. "It does not make my line longer, by cutting another's short."

-Michael

mj-hi-yah

07-28-2004, 05:38 PM

Michael,

This is also my profession and I have Post-Masters' studies in education and I too am passionate about it all. I sincerely apologize if that remark upset you or anyone else reading this thread. If you read through this entire thread you will note that there has been some sarcasm in previous posts and my remark was meant honestly to convey the fact that I do not intend to argue or reduce myself to those tactics.

I voluntarily withdraw my participation from this thread.

MJ :asian:

Michael Billings

07-28-2004, 09:56 PM

mj-hi-ya, see my PM to you.

-Michael

rmcrobertson

07-29-2004, 03:44 AM

I'd still be interested to know exactly how one "knows," that a student is a "kinesthetic learner."

I also find it curious that it seems so difficult to cite research in the field--yes, I'm familiar enough with Gardner--especially by anybody with a degree in, "educational leadership," which is a purely administrative specialization. So far, everybody I've met or read with such a PhD is, in my professional opinion, a phony. But of course there may be exceptions, but these are--believe me--not predicated merely upon having a doctorate.

I haven't been sarcastic. I've been extremely skeptical.

Kenpomachine

07-29-2004, 03:34 PM

You only need to observe your student. In a martial arts class it's easier, as there's less people and you usually interact more with the students. In a lecture setting, as a class at university, you won't know until the student tells you. Well, most of the people that don't go to classes and later study by just reading the material are visual learners.

By the way, I cited my educational background because Robert seemed to be stating that kinesthetic learners have it almost impossible to get a degree in an environment set for visual learners.

It hasn't to do with the style of learning, but the internal resources one have.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

07-29-2004, 05:07 PM

Sorry...my computer has been down.

Robert -- Yes. The collected works. My lifetime experience with reading excellent works and the educational system started long before university level. At the tender age of 4, I was recommended for assessment of potential learning disabilities, and possible "slow development". Turns out, according to the psychiatrist, I was bored. I was one of those kids who had taken apart then rebuilt the stereo, TV, lawnmower, etc., by the time I hit my 3rd birthday, but I couldn't sit still to attend to a Sesame Street episode to save my life.

School starts, and the story worsens. They start me in mainstream classes, where I fail miserably. Before they can plop me in special ed (or justify keeping me there after pre-plopping me), I have to be subjected to a battery of psych & IQ tests (I got really good at them, eventually, just via the practice effect..started scoring off the charts on the WISC, so they had to switch me to the WAIS in my very early teens). Results of the tests indicated I belonged in MGM (don;t know what they call it now, but back then it was the acronym for over-achieving smart kids). In MGM, they wanted to expose me early to high school and college learning materials...like math (which I hate to this day), history (I never cared a rats petootie about how many guys signed a piece of paper 200 years earlier), and so on. Bored, I'd set my head on the table & nap 'till class was over, so I could go home and do what I wanted to do...oddly enough, that was READ!

My favorite topics were psychology, philosophy (classic thinker texts about the meaning of life, not the Boolean math-like stuff), and so on. Meanwhile, I'm flunking out of MGM, being dropped "down" to the mainstream classes, flunkingout of them, and being placed in the special ed classes...where the whole thing starts all over again.

For a 4th Grade English book report, I read Hunchback of Notre Dame...not the Cliff notes or disney versions, but the thick one with big words. My 4th Grade English teacher also insinuated I was a liar (as you did in your previous post about Freud)...tried to get me suspended for lying...problem was, my Pops...a Masters in Math and PhD in Nuclear Physics...was reading his stuff next to me and helping me unpackage context pieces I didn't get. How? I didn;t know anything about heirarchy in the Catholic church, or it's place in the History of France. He'd make me put down Hunchback, and read some texts and non-fictions he'd find on the topic, THEN I could return to Hunchback. Kinda took the teacher back to have Dad say, "He's not lying...I was there; I helped...I taught him how to read by three". (they didn't have phonics then, but they did have Seuss)

Works of Freud, because at the time my Dad was heavily reearching the fathers of Psych for a play he was working on in his spare time...in which Young Freud, Jung, Rank, & Adler are shades stepping out from behind items in a Train station while Old Freud is waiting to leave occupied Vienna, levelling their accusations and differences at Freud, while he defends himself in thought. Got so taken with the idea of mind as malleable construct, that I read every book he picked up for his research...the collected works of Freud, Jung, Rank, and Adler, as well as supplementary works by disciples of these thinkers aimed at elaborating or clarifying theoretical positions (i.e., Progoff, etc.). Did I count the volumes? No (too much like math...remember, I hate math). But my fathers study had three sets of shelves, each 8 feet long and 5 shelves high, covered with books on 3 things: Psych fathers and history of psych, philosophy (per my request...some classics), and screenwriting (his gig). Read all but the screenwriting, and still have some of my favorite works by Jung, leftover from the early days of this particular obsession. (Later switched to Eastern religious studies...both the hippie crap that was out, as well as the cultural classics...but I'm sure you'll insinuate I'm lying about that, too)

If it interests me, I can blow through about a book a day (2 if it's a long book). If I'm not interested, it can take me weeks to get through 1 page of stuff I gotta know for an upcoming exam.

Meanwhile, I just barely avoided flunking out of high school. Then hit college to get straight A's (go figure...I got to choose the classes, mostly). Those classes included L&M, Psych Testing, etc...so I am familiar with your criticisms of standardizations of tests, and the lack of sound theory supporting them.

I do not personally believe a decent learning style diagnostic tool exists...primarily because a clear and well-examined theory does not exist. And applications of trait theory, extrapolated to social applications, have always failed miserably (have you ever seen the Strongs/Campbell (sp) type ever place someone happily? Ever seen a longitudinal study evaluating the predictive validity of these inventories with career placement outcomes?).

This is precisely why the infamous Scientist/Practitioner model was adopted for psych some many years back (can't tell you how many...that would be math). The unfolding and evolving state of the evidentiary research data (evidence, because as you know, there is never definitive proof or law in psych...not even in strict behavioral methodologies...Skinner and his tangable empiricism ended up in the basement, because of Chomsky's intangible position that trial and error could not, alone, account for the rapid acquisition of language skills...mathematically) is to be embraced as a supportive mechanism, correlated with the clinical observations of the practicing shrink. Clinical eval alone is insufficient, and needs the rigors of science to seperate viable diagnostic and treatment regimens from silly fluff. Empirical rigors alone only prove that, given the controlled conditions A, B and C, some variable X will influence the outcome of some other variable Y within a certain level of statistical predictability. Takes both to be a good doctor.

You embrace and teach kenpo. Last I looked, there was no study taking 999 subjects, and randomly dividing them into 3rds...teaching one group kenpo defenses against 3 specific attacks, teaching the other group defenses against the same 3 attacks (but the techs they learn are from, let's say arbitrarily, a mish-mosh of the top 5 systems other than kenpo, based on gross national reciepts of school membership...wait, I feel a findings and recommendations piece coming on for the end of the discussion), and leaving the final 3rd to their own destinies. Then we'll sick some buncha mooks after these subjects, attacking with only one of the 3 pre-designated attacks. Next, we'll do an analysis to see if A) the kenpo group did any better overall (based on number of injuries sustained by the attackers?); B) if they did better on some attacks and not others (individual differences, or poor systemic design on the part of EPAK?); and so on.

Such a study ain't out there, and yet kenpo PRACTITIONERS continue to lay claim to teaching a scientifically based system. Meanwhile, no one has bothered to sit down with the people who, academically, do know about bodies in motion to reflect and/or modify kenpo moves and basics to ensure their internal validity with the body of research evidence, as it exists to date. Anybody here a PhD in Biomechanics? Kino? There are volumes of studies and dissertations out on the complex mechanics of gait, alone, ...how much do you suppose would have to go into a true, scientifically-researched study of even one yellow belt technique? Kenpo is based on clinical observations, not science, yet is embraced as valid. As you said earlier, hm.

Skepticism is a great tool, but like all tools, has it's own limitations in extremes. To be a proper skeptic, you must doubt if the sidewalk under your next footstep is going to cave in to a sinkhole 30 feet down. Sure, your subjective experience tells you, "hasn't happened before; not likely to happen now", but that's not based on sound empirical research data, culled from multiple controlled experiments, is it? The posibility exists, but the null hypothesis has not been ruled out in the rigors of research, so you really take your fate in your own hands by trusting in that dangerous walk way. A good skeptic would be concerned about such things, to the point of paraslysis. (healthy skepticism vs. silly fluff, just for noises sake?)

Nonsense, eh? Yet, after a spell, it all starts sounding alike...just the face or name are different. Still nonsense.

The scientific model is not even embraced by all scientists or ivy-league academics, many with greater insight, education and experience than you or I. None of this will prevent my clinical, subjective self from enjoying an ice cream (which could, in the untested realm of possibility, explode in my face...until proven otherwise) while I stroll down the sidewalk (and we know how dangerous that can be).

Someone once asked me, "How do we combat ignorance?". I replied that we cannot. We can only provide information and opportunity...it is up to each individual to choose what they will do with it.

D.

PS -- Theories exist, generally, in advance of the research that supports or undermines them. Many turn out to be correct, at some level. Were they wholly incorrect before the research was conducted? Additionally, applications exists without objective understanding of the mechanisms supporting them. Does that make them less effective? The specific mechanism of action of aspirin wasn't understood until very recently (compared to how long it's been in use). Does that mean it never helped a headache in all the years prior? Again, silly nonsense.

Rainman

07-29-2004, 07:27 PM

Someone once asked me, "How do we combat ignorance?". I replied that we cannot. We can only provide information and opportunity...it is up to each individual to choose what they will do with it.

That was good. Someone may only be willing to open the door and it is up to whoever to research the information in full or part and then ask questions. Very few do that- man you are coming up with some good stuff lately. Let me ask you this: How complete is your Kenpo becoming? And do you now feel the need to supplement it with another martial art?

rmcrobertson

07-29-2004, 10:02 PM

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

07-30-2004, 01:38 AM

Few would know the reference to deep structure if it bit them in the hiney; congrats (and well summarized...read Korzibsky? (sp)).

Along the lines of "we become those things we fear/dislike the most", I think prejudice raises its head in many guises, including the arrogance of intellectual materialism. I despise it in myself when I see it there (generally keeping my mouth shut lest I insert a foot), and when I think I see it rear its head elsewhere, I find myself tempted to take a stance against it. Hence, my bullying...I interpreted your blanket refusal of anything related to learning style theory as an act of such arrogance; all the more interesting since not much of any research in the humanities ever really proves anything. I, again, apologize for any inappropriate tones I may have taken in my posts...seemed like a good idea at the time.

Many intricate systems are too complex to be submitted to the X -->Y nature of empirical science...at least as the methods for testing such multivariate hypotheses exist today. Nevertheless, these systems exist. Not all hueristic shortcuts are innately evil. To reject the usefulness of a conceptual structure based on the sole fact that it has not yet been "proven"...well, you get it.

As for the Freud thing...well, I know. I wouldn't expect naught but a skeptical response anyway...anything else would be disappointing, in a way.

As for learning styles, I've maintained a position that we are not "visual" or "auditory" learners...we use all channels of perception and processing, all the time. We may develop preferences, which in turn generate preferred methods of idendifying various data in the environment, but the other channels have not magically shut down. Idea worth exploring: Holographic learning. Up-regulating ALL channels of perception and processing to encompass new information experientially, in total.

Anyways, gotta go. Gotta summer cold, and can't wait to sleep.

Tchuss!

D.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

07-30-2004, 08:17 PM

"First question: who is speaking? Who, among the totality of speaking individuals, is accorded the right to use this sort of language? Who is qualified to do so? Who derives from it his own special quality, his prestige, and from whom, in return, does he receive if not the asssurance, at least the presumption that what he says is true?"

--Michel Foucault, "The Archaeology of Knowledge."

Looks to be, in part, a return to the issues of ethos, pathos & logos. I'll have to look it up; might be an interesting read.

Among the things deserving of a wary eye remains the attempts that we see, throughout martial arts, to use "science," as one of many assertions of authority with which to close off subsequent discussion. It appears in many forms, not least of which are name-dropping, the citation of peripherally-relevant terms, and the invocation of prestigious institutions such as the Ivy League...sorry, can't remember if I bought the t-shirt or not.
Love it. You wear sarcasm well. Name-dropping is an interesting innuendo, if it's directed towards me. Particularly since discussing topics without mentioning specifics had led to a number of criticisms in and of itself:
ME: "I had a conversation with an influential thinker in kenpo about the hight costs of cheese in China, and his thoughts were..."
CRITICS: "What's so secret that you can't name who you were talking to? I don't think you've ever had this conversation with anybody in your life, and you're making it up."
...or...
ME: In a discussion about social learning theory and the effects of observed behaviors of others on the choices made by individuals, I talked to this one guy over dinner who spent a lot of time studying this stuff as a profession..."
Omitted are details of who, when, what are the qualifications of this other guy that anyone should give a rats hindquarters about what he thinks, etc. Different effect then if I say, "I was fortunate enough to join a dinner with Robert Cialdini, PhD, a professor of Social Psych at Tempe and entertainingly ground-breaking field researcher, and his thoughts on the subject were..."
Unfortunately, the only solutions -- including providing the details of such interactions -- can be interpreted as name dropping, even when included solely to avert accusations of vague inferences and innuendos. Can't please 'em all.

And yes, I doubt you've read the full "Collected Works," and I certainly know I haven't.
Taken in the context of the excellent Foucault quote at the beginning of your post, I will contemplate the meaning of your doubts while considering the years you and I have known each other intimately.

hey, what's your position on "Project for a Scientific Psychology?"
No such thing. Psych: mind. Ology: study of. While the better researchers have managed to identify methods for studying behavior, and others have identified neurochemical correlates/precursors/by-products of various mental activities, moods, etc., I have yet to see a mind, dissected and laid on a table before me, open to the world for all to see...therefore, it cannot be studied empirically. And any attempts thus far have inherently built into them that whole ""German guys cat-in-a-box" thing. Even the brain imaging research is done in the environment of a brain imaging center, with the brain itself reacting not only to research tasks but to the environment of the center as well. Objective study of a subjective entity = oxymoron. But that's my own take: I expect the vast majority to disagree with me. Psychology will never be science. Doesn't prevent it from being useful, however.

including the claim of, "martial science," in kenpo
Clearly referencing Doc's work, and potentially my recent interest in it. As I mentioned earlier, there is no true science in kenpo..the motions in singular form are too complex to study, much less in combination...one of the reasons I rarely join in on those conversation that rifle off kenpo defs, elaborated on by the pseudo-algebra of motion kenpo catalog codification ("that's quantum fulcrum force borrowing applied to a B1KbC3...you sank my battleship! [just hit the guy, already]). There are some approaches to learning/practicing/teaching kenpo that make more sense -- and generate a better set of working theories, and subsequent applications -- than others. Doc's work has a good deal of Chinese medicine acupuncture meridian theory kneaded into it. As of yet, no one I know has dissected a meridian, and shown it to be a tangible construct. Kind of like minds...doesn't stop us from failing to use them. I have used acupressure work in my practice with noteable results...pressing on points that do NOT correlate with any anatomical structures identified with producing the observed effect. In my mind, pseudo-science...just like psychology, just like NLP, just like a number of other approaches to understanding observable phenomena that lack hard evidentiary support...but are still useful in certain contexts (I still took aspirin, even if I didn't know how it worked...meanwhile, the mechanisms of action for about half the drugs in the PDR remain unidentified; that doesn't detract from their usefulness as remedies for various conditions). The effects of this focus are observable not only on those enculturated to the discipline of practicing with Doc, but on people who have never been exposed to the expected way to respond, causing me to believe there is substantially more to his approach than suggestive influence. But I establish a difference between "proven" and "useable" constructs, reiterating that some constructs are more useable than others. Based on my own subjective experiences, Doc's approach to kenpo is the most comprehensive, useable form I've encountered. It's his gig; he can call it what he likes, and I'll support him all the way because I like the music playing.

Additionally, having had the opportunity to review many basic movements with a renowned PhD in biomechanics (who will remain nameless, so I'm not name-dropping), I know (to the extent one can know such a thing, given exposure, circumstance, and the poor state of hard science for complex kinematics) that most basics in kenpo are performed in a way that is mechanically disadvantageous to the physical body, and compromise the mechanics of force-generating movements. To date, Doc's clarifications are the only ones I've seen that make good sense to me. Does that mean his is the only way, or that only his students will ever succeed in combat? Of course not: I hear stories all the time of guys from arts I percieve as ineffectual emerging victorious from combat. It does mean that, for me, based on my background and experiences, the next big learning chapter in my life for kenpo is best invested in training with Doc. Professional commitments may prevent me from being able to train with him at the level of commitment I desire, but I will always like what I see.

Skepticism is often misread as unlimited doubt. It's actually a refusal to simply believe everything that's said without thought, and without evidence
Something I have an appreciation for, and a reputation among colleagues. Chiropractic is filled with all sorts of quackery and sleight of hand garbage. The actual research in the field is scant, poorly conducted, and remains largely inferential to make any less-than-heinous conclusions...the guys teaching the research methods classes in the Chiro colleges have barely only read an article or two on the differences btw an RCT and case series, and graduates are NOT required to complete any kind of dissertation or research paper (ideally, immersing them in the information evaluation processes associated with lit reviews, study design, data analysis, etc.). As such, notalotta critical thinking going on in my chosen profession. If even 1% of the ridiculous claims I hear from my industry daily were true, there would be no disease, no hunger, and all people in the world could be healed from any disease process simply by muscle testing for the right homeopathic remedy (read: water), or having their 1st cervical vertebrae adjusted precisely. It was not with healthy skepticism that I approached the functional anatomy/biomechanics prof, but flagrant cynicism...the same hypercritical lenses I wear when I visit any martial arts studio, read any book, thesis, or article, or ponder any claims I hear from anyone, anywhere. I got it bad, because I assume everybody has an agenda, and everything out of their mouths emits only to advance it...even if only to undermine the assertions made in support of another parties agenda. Hence my deep distrust of politicians...all of them, on either side of the isle (why I now stay out of the political fora). So, perhaps, I am not the best suited person to point fingers regarding skepticism...throwing stones from glass houses, and all.

I just hate to see flaked arrowheads tossed out before the stone age gets momentum, all because a good study doesn't exist supporting their efficacy over throwing mammoth dung at edible vermin.

We don't sweat the ground yawning beneath us, because the skeptic's attitude is precisely that of the most famous anecdote about Samuel Johnson, the one in which he responded to Berkeley's idealism by kicking a rock.
Either missed that one, or spaced it. Perhaps you'll share.

Regards,

D.

Doc

07-31-2004, 02:24 PM

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

08-02-2004, 10:43 AM

Something Parker was doing for years before someone gave it a name.
Now, you know I can't help but be curious. What were some of Mr. Parkers early explorations, and how did these express themselves in his training and teaching? Are there shades of it left in kenpo constructs? How did he frame his explorations into the relationship between mind and body, and where did he prefer to go with his explorations as a psychonaut?

As usual,

Dave

rmcrobertson

08-03-2004, 02:14 AM

Actually, for, "martial science," I was referencing "Perfect Weapon," inasmuch as I prefer to pull stuff off the easily-available cultural shelf when I post.

The ref to, "Project for a Scientific Psychology," was to a specific title of Freud's. The Foucault ref is to a thirty-year-old book, by a guy named "Rolling Stone College Philosopher of the Year," two years running--it's a question about claims of power--and so on down the line.

The NLP stuff remains pseudo-science.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

08-03-2004, 02:16 PM

Avoided perfect weapon after the opening night.

Haven't read Freud's work since the mid-to-late seventies & early eighties (the only books remaining on my shelf since that era are by Jung [Analytic Psych: Theory & Practice...the Tavistock lectures; Memories, Dream, Reflections] and Campbell (The masks of god: Primitive Mythology...only survivor of a 4-book series). I don't keep kenpo SD tech names in my head either, but I can still use them.

Don't read Rolling Stone, but will definitely look up Foucault when time permits.

Of course NLP remains pseudo-science...right along with psych, kinesiology, physiology, pathology, pharmacokinetics, and quantum physics. Still all useful for exploring ideas, and conceptualizating usable phenomena into byte-sized models.

Still wanna know about the rock kicking thing, and where I can read about it.

D.

PS -- since this is a thread about how we learn, what methods, if any, do you use to assist your students with learning and comprehension in MA training? I find it hard to believe such a learned gentleman as yourself really only ever puts it out there for the cream to get, abandoning the rest to their fates of settling to the bottom. I can't help but be curious as to what you actually do to assist them in their information acquisition processes.

Doc

08-04-2004, 10:08 AM

Now, you know I can't help but be curious. What were some of Mr. Parker’s early explorations, and how did these express themselves in his training and teaching?

Well I don’t know how many knew it but Parker was a Psych major with a minor in Soc. I’m sure he culled many of his approaches from his educational background.

Are there shades of it left in kenpo constructs?

I don’t think it is flourishing in the commercial version of kenpo but I do believe there are some notable instructors of the “genre” if you will, who have elevated their teachings with various teaching mechanisms like NLP.

How did he frame his explorations into the relationship between mind and body, and where did he prefer to go with his explorations as a psychonaut?

He used and referenced the book, “Super Learning” extensively, and for me, it explained his obsession with always having music in the teaching environment. He also “dabbled” into Plyometrics.

For me, he set the standard by concentrating more on the “how” of movement and expressed little desire to spend excessive time on deep discussions of “why.” (Although he would from time to time)

He always said too many “why’s” slowed the process to a crawl, and stressed the importance of limited time to learn “how” to move. He always said “You must be a warrior before you can begin to become a scholar.” Typically today, many students spend so much time on “why,” that they can only talk kenpo. What Parker called “Hypothetical Kenpo.” I often wondered what he would think about “video black belts.” I think I know what he would say.

At any rate, the body has no shortcuts to learning to move, and the proper alignment of its many facets instinctively takes time. “That is where the time must be invested, to get a decent return on a physical Science.” He would say. “Or,” he continued, “you could sit on your butt and study it on paper, and have no time left to learn to move when you finally understand.”

Makes sense to me, but then I’m his student.

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

08-07-2004, 01:58 AM

I had an early college comm prof who was a big fan of Superlearning, and whole brained learning states (right and left hemispheres working together). In addition to the Superlearning protocols, she introduced each class to Hemi-Sync tapes. You wanna talk about froo? I had read the material from Robert Monroe on Journeys out of the Body, and on how these reported experiences were serendipitous to experiemtns he was conducting, using sound to influence brainwaves in order to induce altered states and whole brain states.

After enough people coming out of the experiments reporting OOB experiences, he switched the focus of his research, individually. Members of his organization, however, continued to experiment with inducing trophotropic (sp?), whole-brained states through the use of binaural sounds & brain wave schmutz (a different steady tone is introduced in each ear, which casues the person hearing the tones to percieve them as one tone, wavering). Combined with the Superlearning material, had a lot of fun cramming massive amounts of material in my head in short periods of time. Could prepare for an exam in hours, instead of days...problem was, retention seemed to be either contextual, or short term. I forget, until I sit through a Hemi-Sync session, then the files open, and I can recall it again. (state-dependent learning?).

D.

And yes, Robert, it's pseudo-science. But its fun, so I'm OK with it.