Can You Be An Expert?

[DennisBreene]

But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....

Just as devils advocate.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

True. And you can log the hours flown and the cases performed. How does one catalogue field experience in self defense in our relatively safe society?

 

[Steve]

But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....

Exactly, tgace. What kind of a pilot would he be if he didn't actually fly the damned plane? But, that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here with regards to self defense.

Just as devils advocate.

No problem.

 

[ballen0351]

Well, sure they're different. But he was an expert... just not an expert cop. He was an expert analyst. Why? Because that's what he did. Yes! We're getting somewhere! Doing the job in the field doesn't necessarily make you an expert. Certainly doesn't make you an expert analyst.

Man, seriously. The world would be a MUCH better place if people understood the simple distinction you're making above. Respect people's area of expertise and it makes all the difference. An analyst is an expert analyst. Could he do your job? No. But he can help you do your job better, if that's his area of expertise.

No your just flat wrong. He was an expert at officer safety. He was teaching us to do our jobs safer. We took his expertise and put it in action. He was still the expert not me. Could he do my job sure with a little training but why he's making 3 times as much teaching classes

 

[Steve]

True. And you can log the hours flown and the cases performed. How does one catalogue field experience in self defense in our relatively safe society?

Well, there's a great question. However, before we start tackling the question of cataloging experience within the field of self defense, can we first agree that experience is necessary?

I know Chris Parker has alleged multiple times that experience is not necessary in order to become a self defense expert.

 

[Steve]

No your just flat wrong. He was an expert at officer safety. He was teaching us to do our jobs safer. We took his expertise and put it in action. He was still the expert not me. Could he do my job sure with a little training but why he's making 3 times as much teaching classes

LOL. Once again, you're saying I'm wrong and then saying EXACTLY the same thing I'm saying.

 

[ballen0351]

LOL. Once again, you're saying I'm wrong and then saying EXACTLY the same thing I'm saying.

I don't think you know what your saying. Who is the officer safety (offixer self defense) expert? The guy teaching the class that has zero in field experience or the cop taking the class? You claim one can't be a self defense expert without real world experience yet he is one.

 

[Steve]

I don't think you know what your saying. Who is the officer safety (offixer self defense) expert? The guy teaching the class that has zero in field experience or the cop taking the class? You claim one can't be a self defense expert without real world experience yet he is one.

I'm just going on what you're saying. What exactly does the officer safety expert do? Help me out here, ballen.

 

[Tgace]

Didn't we have a long thread on this topic elsewhere Steve?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Didn't we have a long thread on this topic elsewhere Steve?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Yes. And I put a link to it in the sport vs tma thread. I don't honestly think I can say it much differently than I did in that thread.... I haven't seen anything that has changed my mind. Human beings all accumulate experience in the same way. There are no short cuts to expertise. You have to log the hours.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm just going on what you're saying. What exactly does the officer safety expert do? Help me out here, ballen.

What do you think he does. He teaches skills to officers to do the job safer. He teaches self defense to officers. Yet he has no real world experience which you said can't be done.

 

[DennisBreene]

Well, there's a great question. However, before we start tackling the question of cataloging experience within the field of self defense, can we first agree that experience is necessary?

I know Chris Parker has alleged multiple times that experience is not necessary in order to become a self defense expert.

I believe that a huge part of the issue is in defining experience. As a trained eye surgeon, I was skilled when I completed my training. I was an expert in the eyes of a non-eye surgeon. In practice, when I was operating, I frequently faced circumstances that I had not treated in training. I may have read about them, I may have seen videos of how others handled similar circumstances. On occasion, I faced circumstances where I didn't have even that benefit. I still had to manage the situation. In the process of garnering that collective experience, I became an expert in the eyes of my peers (and I also viewed them as experts). The continuum from trained to expert had no qualifying line to mark my progress but that didn't make the distinction any less real. I did have the benefit of years of experience in my specialty to buttress that distinction. I suspect that in the world of martial arts, experienced artists can point to others who they respect as experts, based on their collective experiences and demonstrated skills in situations as close to "reality" as is practical. Can it be codified? Maybe not.

 

[Tgace]

As I said in:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108916

Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[oftheherd1]

I think that everything you're saying makes perfect sense. I don't know how to say it in a way that is more clear. Nothing you say above is in conflict with anything I've said. Once again, being well trained is the first step toward becoming an expert in something.

There's something else here that's important to remember. Talking about pilots or LEO or nurses or airborne infantry is different than talking about crash landings, CPR, or parachute malfunctions. In the former group, we're talking about a broad skill set. In the latter, we're talking about a specific skill.

In any broad skill set or profession, the experience gained in the core skill set of the profession will be the foundation for success when encountering something outside the norm. For example, an inexperienced pilot will be well trained in emergency procedures. But when US Airways flight 1549 struck a flock of Canadian Geese on take off, don't you think Capt. Sullenberger's 20,000 flight hours and almost 5,000 hours in that specific model aircraft were salient to the successful crash landing?

Here's the real question. Do you guys believe that there's no practical difference between an experienced pilot like Capt. Sullenberger or someone who's logged 20,000 hours in a simulator? If you were thinking about attending a seminar on the realities of handling an in-flight emergency and water landing, would you find a guy who's run all the simulations to be equivalent to someone who's actually done it?

I don't know that I understand what you are trying to say in the bolded text. Any particular skill in any body of knowledge can probably be trained to. That I don't know anything about throws doesn't mean I can't be trained to execute a particular release and break. It may take a little longer if I don't have some basic foundations, but I can still be taught that.

In the case of Cpt Sullenberger, I have no doubt his previous training and experience in that particular aircraft were valuable in his successful landing. But although I have never talked with him, I think something of greater value at that time was his experience as a glider pilot. Without power of any sort, he had to rely on that experience. Granted that aircraft didn't have a great glide angle, but he had experience to ascertain what its glide angle was and use that to the advantage of landing the aircraft.

So I would say it was the training both as a pilot of the type of aircraft he was flying, and of flying a glider. If he ever received simulator training on complete loss of power while climbing during a takeoff, he could not have learned the feel of an aircraft like he would have from flying gliders.

 

[DennisBreene]

I don't know that I understand what you are trying to say in the bolded text. Any particular skill in any body of knowledge can probably be trained to. That I don't know anything about throws doesn't mean I can't be trained to execute a particular release and break. It may take a little longer if I don't have some basic foundations, but I can still be taught that.

In the case of Cpt Sullenberger, I have no doubt his previous training and experience in that particular aircraft were valuable in his successful landing. But although I have never talked with him, I think something of greater value at that time was his experience as a glider pilot. Without power of any sort, he had to rely on that experience. Granted that aircraft didn't have a great glide angle, but he had experience to ascertain what its glide angle was and use that to the advantage of landing the aircraft.

So I would say it was the training both as a pilot of the type of aircraft he was flying, and of flying a glider. If he ever received simulator training on complete loss of power while climbing during a takeoff, he could not have learned the feel of an aircraft like he would have from flying gliders.

I think both contributions are valid points. The analogies of various careers only have some relevance to self defense. But in the arena of self defense, there are those who have effectively made a career of the study and practice of self defense. The question follows; what skills and training are required to demonstrate the competence one would expect to be "expert" in the general practice of self defense (as opposed to being a sub-specialist in one isolated aspect like guns)? How does one actually demonstrate that competence in a way that would make it apparent that the skills would be effective in real life situations? And, how does one transfer that knowledge and skill to a student in a way that one could have reasonable confidence that the student could use the knowledge in a real life situation?

 

[K-man]

Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?

Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
:asian:

 

[DennisBreene]

Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?

Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
:asian:

I don't think this is really a digression. I believe that until we define our terms we risk unending circular reasoning. To my mind, self defense for the average martial artist encompasses defense against personal attack in a non-military, non-competition and non-job required scenario. Military, LEO, sport, corrections, all imply a potentially different skill set (though certainly overlapping) and are unique. I leave it to the collective wisdom as to whether that is the general understanding.

 

[SENC-33]

Real world experience will give you a leg up in actually defending yourself but no you don't need real world experience to be considerrd an expert in teaching it. So much of self defense can be learned and taught through observation, the understanding of people and violence and plain old common sense. You don't need a real world certificate to pass that knowledge on.

 

[Tgace]

History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....

Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....

Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Flip side I've seen vet cops do some really stupid stuff due to complacency. Time on and real world experience alone don't make you an expert

 

[MJS]

I like to look at this from the probability projection. If you have knocked/taken 100 guys down, the chance that you may knock/take your next opponent down will be high. The question is where will you be able to accumulate your 100 successful experience if not from "sport"? Can you consider "sport" real world?

Well, unless you walked around going from bar to bar and picking fights, you're right, you probably won't get 100 guys. Of course, this obviously isn't the best thing to do. To answer your question, can I consider 'sport', real world? Well, within a certain context, I could, but of course, there are limits. You'll probably get some real world resistance and contact, but as far as the other things, ie: a mat vs. pavement, weapons vs no weapons, no ref, the higher odds of death in the real world vs staying alive in the ring, sure, like I said, it'll be real to a point.