Anecdotal vs. empirical

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Despite what some people on here may think, the world is built on trust. We are social animals and therefore have to trust each other to a certain degree. If you had to give scientific evidence that something you say is true all the time, nothing would ever get done. Just look at your average marketing pitch, where it's common to say that the product is "amazing" or "the best". Imagine if the sales team for that product had to provide a study paper as to why their product is so good. Would anyone actually bother to read it? The answer is they wouldn't, because it takes far too long, so instead we rely on trust.

 

[Paul_D]

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize?

Probably not, as the problem you have is most MA train to fight, so they don't like to accept the idea that what they are training for is not the best way to train for other scenario.

If you agree to go out side and fight someone in the pub car park you are not defending yourself, as SD is defending your self from non consensual criminal violence. If you consent, it's a fight, which can get you arrested. So the law is a useful yardstick.

However, like I said, when someone is only trained for a consensual fight with a skilled martial artist, they assume, through either ignorance of the realities of criminal violence, or arrogance that if they can deal with a skilled fighter a mere criminal should pose no threat; that they can handle SD, so when they are told what they are doing is not the best way to train for SD they deny it.

 

[Tez3]

There's also the problem that not everything works for everyone. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it's true for everyone. There is no 'one right way' which everyone should be doing which often comes from strict teaching and grading of techniques. People have to adapt, to make it work for them. Often here someone puts up a video and people criticise, they say 'you should have done this' instead but it's not necessarily right for that person. Offering suggestions can help but people never take into account different sizes, strengths height etc when telling people they are wrong to do what they did or telling them they must do it another way.

 

[Jenna]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

No martial art on earth is 100% provable to be efficacious when deployed in your physical defence.

No martial art technique is 100% provable to be efficacious on all people in all situations who would be physically aggressive towards you.

Some level of uncertainty is inevitable. However, the question might be: what level of uncertainty are you comfortable with? When, for you, is proof enough proof enough? Is different for each individual of course. For me, the more need I have for physical defence, the more proof I want that what I believe I know is of any actual use.

So then the higher the degree of proof you require in the efficaciousness of your physical defensive abilities, the greater the requirement to practice in the situations and with the kinds of people in which you will need those physical defensive abilities. Again, your degree of proof requirement will dictate how closely those situations and people need to resemble the actual ones you will encounter, and how exhaustively that practice need be. I envision it as a scale spanned by liking a video, believing online hype or hearing some high ranker at a demo at one end through structured competition and randori in your training place to trying dumb stuff with your pals through to putting yourself in the exact situation at the other end of the scale. How valid each of those proofs are depend what you need or where you need to be..

 

[Paul_D]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

The biggest problem you have is the vast majority of MA are male, and their only experience of violence is consensual fighting, either in the ring, in the dojo or in the street. To many of them therefore, the only situation they can understand is men fighting each other, to them that, and only that, is SD.

If you can't even get them to accept that sending your Gran to the nearest MMA club is not what she needs to learn to stop a thief stealing her handbag, how can you hope to have people accept what can and cannot work for SD.

MA will often not make the effort to understand how muggers chose their victims, and therefore learn what to do, and what not to do to avoid being selected as a victim. Instead they will wait until they have been selected as a victim, and then talk about how they would "fight" a mugger if they turned around after taking money out of cash machines and found someone standing heir holding a knife.

How many times to we see people posting videos of SD techniques, which consist entirely of people defending punches, grabs, weapons etc, and totally ignoring everything that has happened that has lead up to the point where a punch was thrown. Why, because they don't have the SD skills to deal with that, they on,y have fighting skills, so that is all they can understand.

The other problem you have is that with training, or sporting contests, people can see what works, either in their own training or on TV. They therefore think that what works for a consensual fight works for SD. You cannot therefore explain to them that a triangle choke is not ideal for SD. They know it works, they done it in training, and they've seen it on TV. It's only when they take a mugger to the ground and his accomplice, who they didn't notice was stood nearby (because they have no Threat Awareness and Evaluation skills) stomps their head flat, that they realise it is not a good technique for SD. And if you do tell them, they don't hear, "a triangle choke is great for the ring, but not idea for SD" that isn't what they hear. What they hear is - triangle chokes don't work under any circumstances, and your chosen martial art is ****. They then react on that basis, completely missing the point.

Even when you do have video evidence of consensual fighting skills failing for SD (Miquelon Falcoa & Kaue Mena as the most famous example) people who only have consensual fighting skills, will dismiss it it as evidence that consensual fighting skills are not the best fit for SD, because they are unable or unwilling to understand how and why others skills are more appropriate. So if you can't get them to accept other skills may be more appropriate, how can you hope to get them to agree on what does and does not work?

On others points, take Aikido for example, it is constantly put forward that Aikido does not work for SD. Yet if you ask people if they honestly and truly believe that no one ever has been able to use aikido to defend themselves in the entire history of the art, they will admit that yes probably some people may have been able to do it in certain circumstances, but will then continue us to insist that it does not work for SD based purely on the fact it does not work for scoring pointless in a consensual fight/ sporting contest, and conveniently ignoring the fact that it is not designed for scoring points in a sporting contest. Because to them if it's not a fight, it's not SD.

So, the issue you have, in short, is that because most male MA only have fighting skills, and their only experience of violence is consensual sport fighting or consensual pub brawls, they will only ever accept the view point that if it doesn't not work for a counsel or sport fight, then it doesn not work for SD. And no amount of real (let alone anecdotal) evidence will ever change their mind.

 

[drop bear]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

Why not just make up your own martial art based on that information?

People complain about being a judo expert from books and you tube. But we can be a self defence expert based on pretty much the same thing.

Having no data on what works and what doesn't for self defence is incredibly convenient for the people who teach it. It means you can't counter whatever they think is true.

 

[drop bear]

If you can't even get them to accept that sending your Gran to the nearest MMA club is not what she needs to learn to stop a thief stealing her handbag, how can you hope to have people accept what can and cannot work for SD.

And yet all styles work.

Hmmmmmmmm............

 

[drop bear]

Despite what some people on here may think, the world is built on trust. We are social animals and therefore have to trust each other to a certain degree. If you had to give scientific evidence that something you say is true all the time, nothing would ever get done. Just look at your average marketing pitch, where it's common to say that the product is "amazing" or "the best". Imagine if the sales team for that product had to provide a study paper as to why their product is so good. Would anyone actually bother to read it? The answer is they wouldn't, because it takes far too long, so instead we rely on trust.

And marketing use that trust to lie to us.

 

[Paul_D]

And yet all styles work.

Hmmmmmmmm............

You don't need MA to avoid being mugged, you have simultaneously missed the point and proven my point at the same time. You are only able to see SD in terms of fighting.

 

[drop bear]

You don't need MA to avoid being mugged, you have simultaneously my missed the point and proven my point at the same time. You are only able to see SD in terms of fighting.

Your point keeps shifting.

Self defence isn't just avoiding being mugged. Which by the way I have been pretty successful at.

 

[Paul_D]

Self defence isn't just avoiding being mugged.

I never said it was. This is the other problem which is rife on MT among a handful of posters, someone writes one thing, and then certain people read it as something different.

 

[drop bear]

I never said it was. This is the other problem which is rife on MT among a handful of posters, someone writes one thing, and then certain people read it as something different.

That was your only example of self defence in your post.

I don't think anybody has said self defence is only about fighting. Where did you get that impression from?

And of course if all styles worked. Then it wouldn't matter what you did for self defence. Would it?

 

[Paul_D]

That was your only example of self defence in your post.

It was one example, again point missed.

I don't think anybody has said self defence is only about fighting. Where did you get that impression from?

I can't imagine, I mean it's not like when talking about a SD situation which doesn't involve fighting, people reply with "And yet all styles work" is it?

 

[hoshin1600]

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

i do not think this thinking really explains the problem, and this thinking in itself is the reason for the problem. the problem is not the complexity of fighting or the ability to quantify it, the real problem is within the confines and capabilities of ones mind and thinking capacity. think of a bulls eye with a center circle and an outer circle. the center is the area of knowledge we fully understand and can articulate. the outer circle is the area of knowledge we know but can not fully articulate. we see it but its low resolution images. outside this, is the area we have no knowledge of at all and in this outer sphere we tend to draw from our own imagination or we have to take others thoughts and ideas as the truth.
in conversations here online, those three areas get mixed into one. people write stuff as fact when they are really talking out of their butts. there is a lot of verbal ego building and protection going on. people have the habit of arguing in order to keep their own inner narrative from having holes poked into it. a person will use imagination as fact and others not knowing the facts will not except true facts because it does not match the narrative they hold in their heads and to admit they are outside their own realm of articulated knowledge or to accept facts that contradict their imaginative view point would be a blow to their core being.

the only reason the conversations or arguments are even taking place is because the circle of known articulated knowledge is not large enough to encompass the topic.
it is my belief that, as a MA practitioner i am in constant pursuit of making that center circle larger and in a higher resolution. its not fighting that cant be quantified or understood or even empirically tested and studied, its the individuals capacity to understand ,to study it and to devise the correct methodology to test and quantify.

 

[Martial D]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

Here's the thing, from where I sit. Classical MA is the boy that has been crying wolf since the 70s, at least. The entire culture has been rampant with a sort of BS that more closely resembles religion than science, and has thus far been quite resistant to the intrusion of a scientific approach.

In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long. Caveat emptor.

 

[Paul_D]

and has thus far been quite resistant to the intrusion of a scientific approach.

In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long. Caveat emptor.

Yeah, really scientific LOL
Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo

And crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?

 

[Martial D]

Yeah, really scientific LOL
Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo

And crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?

Some.

Many got exposed as BS, long ago. Yet believers still believe. Much like other religions.

 

[jobo]

Yeah, really scientific LOL
Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo

And crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?

just to add that fighting with no training at all has proved to be quite successful in a lot of situations