Can You Be An Expert?

[CNida]

So how would you know if he's done it or not? Just because he tells you? There are lots of people that lie all the time. Stolen Valor Facebook page posts phony war hero's everyday. Guys out there claiming experience they don't have and teaching classes and other jobs using this fake experiences. Other guys with real true experiences are out there that you would never know about they don't talk about it. I was training with a guy in Judo for like 6 months I had no idea he was a legit Silver star wearing purple heart owning special forces guy a real war hero. I only found out because I googled these supplements he was using and I found out he was a spokesman for them. Then all these stories about him and the things he did were popping up. He was the real deal and never once mentioned it. When I asked him he just said yeah but its no big deal and changed the topic. I don't think he liked talking about it so I dropped it.

I don't have much experience in Martial Arts or self defense, but I think I know enough to tell when someone is qualified to teach me stuff. If I go to a self defense class and the guy is able to show me he can apply the techniques he is teaching me, then it's good enough to me. Otherwise, you're right. I can't know for sure if he can't prove it.

But what we are talking about here is the difference between a guy who's only experience in self defense is what he sees in statistics records or youtube versus a guy who can prove that the stuff he is teaching works.

I will go with the guy who can prove himself in application over the guy who can show me a statistic about why a technique works.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

 

[ballen0351]

I don't have much experience in Martial Arts or self defense, but I think I know enough to tell when someone is qualified to teach me stuff. If I go to a self defense class and the guy is able to show me he can apply the techniques he is teaching me, then it's good enough to me. Otherwise, you're right. I can't know for sure if he can't prove it.

But what we are talking about here is the difference between a guy who's only experience in self defense is what he sees in statistics records or youtube versus a guy who can prove that the stuff he is teaching works.

I will go with the guy who can prove himself in application over the guy who can show me a statistic about why a technique works.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

So how does one prove themselves?

 

[CNida]

So how does one prove themselves?

A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

 

[ballen0351]

A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

Right in class. Not in real life

 

[K-man]

A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.

I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.

The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation.

Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.

 

[CNida]

Right in class. Not in real life

We aren't talking about the effectiveness of a technique in real life though. We are discussing whether or not someone can be an "expert" in self defense without ever having exercised the techniques.

I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.

The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation.

Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.

Exactly. The true test for self defense techniques is to actually use them in a legitimate situation. Not everyone has experienced a true self defense scenario, so that means you can either put your stock in the "expert" who get all his knowledge from strict observation, or you put your faith in a scarred old man who shows you how to choke someone out by actually practicing the technique in the dojo.

To me it's a no brainer. And that's not an angled comment. There is nothing illegitimate about knowing alot about an art, but I am much more comfortable with the instructor who knows AND does, not just simply "knows".


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

 

[ballen0351]

We aren't talking about the effectiveness of a technique in real life though. We are discussing whether or not someone can be an "expert" in self defense without ever having exercised the techniques.

No the question was can some one be an expert with no real life experience. In a class room or dojo is not real life but if I can teach you the best arm bar known to man why does it matter if I've ever applied in outside the dojo. If it works it works. On the flip side just because I can execute something in the real world doesn't mean you could do the same thing and just because I can't execute something in the real world doesn't mean couldn't pull it off. So real life experience isn't needed. Is it a added bonus sure but not a must have. At least to me its not. I don't care if you can walk the talk as long as the talk is sound and works.

Exactly. The true test for self defense techniques is to actually use them in a legitimate situation. Not everyone has experienced a true self defense scenario, so that means you can either put your stock in the "expert" who get all his knowledge from strict observation, or you put your faith in a scarred old man who shows you how to choke someone out by actually practicing the technique in the dojo.

To me it's a no brainer. And that's not an angled comment. There is nothing illegitimate about knowing alot about an art, but I am much more comfortable with the instructor who knows AND does, not just simply "knows".


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

So then how many of these old men in dojo's do you think are out there. And again how do you know if the old mans stories are real?

 

[ballen0351]

I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.

The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation.

Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.

Right the technique working or not has nothing to do with the teachers past. Just because my teacher snapped 79 arms via arm bars in real fights growing up that helps me none when its my turn to defend myself.

 

[CNida]

No the question was can some one be an expert with no real life experience. In a class room or dojo is not real life but if I can teach you the best arm bar known to man why does it matter if I've ever applied in outside the dojo. If it works it works. On the flip side just because I can execute something in the real world doesn't mean you could do the same thing and just because I can't execute something in the real world doesn't mean couldn't pull it off. So real life experience isn't needed. Is it a added bonus sure but not a must have. At least to me its not. I don't care if you can walk the talk as long as the talk is sound and works.


So then how many of these old men in dojo's do you think are out there. And again how do you know if the old mans stories are real?

No. A dojo isn't real life but I find what I learn in practical exercise to be far more efficient than learning it from a book or a statistic.

The only way you can be absolutely certain the "old man" is legitimate is to actually have witnessed him in a self defense scenario. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier, you can't be sure anyone is who they say they are, or that they can do what they say they can.

If your stereotypical bookworm comes to me and says that he has read that Technique A works 95% of the time and I can verify what he read, then good. Does this make him a master martial artist or even an expert on that technique? No. It just means that he read the book. Is he less credible? Not at all.

On the other hand, a grizzled old man can tell me a story of a situation he had encountered before, show me the technique he used by either applying it on myself or someone else, and thus proving that the technique is mechanically sound. Im my opinion that means so much more than what some guy read in a book somewhere.

I am not going to get into the semantics of who has more street credibility, because that would be an endless argument.

The OP's question was can you be an expert without actually practicing. In my opinion, to be THAT kind of expert, you actually have to train in self defense.

Noone won a gold medal in skiing without skiing once or twice beforehand. Show me otherwise. And if it applies for an Olympic sport then you have to imagine it would apply just as much in a self defense situation.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

 

[Tgace]

Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?

 

[CNida]

Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?

Could be lots of reasons. I don't know any of those guys. But if a firearms/tactics instructor can show me credentials showing he was Special Forces or SEALs, then I would consider him a legitimate source of knowledge to tap into.

It's really quite easy to prove too, in my opinion. A DD214 should show your MOS and how long you were in service, and it should show what theaters you served in too. So its not necessarily a difficult thing to verify.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous

 

[ballen0351]

Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?

Because people love war stories. I'm not saying having experience isn't a good thing. I'm say its not a must have to know what your talking about. They are telling great stories doesn't mean they are better shooters or better teachers. Its like why are attractive people treated differently then less attractive people. Same thing guys with cooler stories are more sought after.

 

[Tgace]

Because people love war stories. I'm not saying having experience isn't a good thing. I'm say its not a must have to know what your talking about. They are telling great stories doesn't mean they are better shooters or better teachers. Its like why are attractive people treated differently then less attractive people. Same thing guys with cooler stories are more sought after.

I agree in part, but there is no denying that a Delta soldier has some shooting skill creds. Teaching creds? Different story, but combine demonstrateable skill with teaching ability and the "been there done that" experience of having applied that skill "real world" and there's a value added aspect to these guys.

BUT. Combat experienced shooters are more easily findable these days than guys who can claim real world h2h experience.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm.... this might take a bit... and get a bit repetitive... but, as I was mentioned a few times, might as well enter into it...

In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.

Steve said:

Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.

To which Chris replied:

Yes, you can. Many are. It comes down to understanding what the needs are first and foremost, and continuing from there. I mean, most self defence isn't anything to do with any physical techniques at all... so there's nothing to go and test. It actually is far more an academic area than you're thinking it is. Forget the idea of techniques, you're focusing on the wrong thing, and honestly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against.

So, what does everyone think? Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience? Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance. Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation? If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off. Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary. But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important. Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on? How about the pilot flying the plane you're on? I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.

I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.

Can you be an expert or authority on self defence without real world experience at defending yourself? Yes. Is it easier/enhanced with some personal experience to back up your expertise? Yes. But, and here's the thing, only when there is already a fair degree of expertise attained. And, honestly, the surgeon and pilot are rather false analogies, when it comes down to it. Neither are an "expert" in the same vein.. a pilot is a pilot, not an expert on aeroplanes or flight, a surgeon is a surgeon, not an expert on surgeries (they may well be a specialist, which can make them an expert in that area, but simply being a surgeon does not equate to being an expert in and of itself).

So, really, there are two initial questions. What is an expert, and what is the field of self defence? That then leads to asking how expertise in the field of self defence manifests.

Maybe instead of saying that someone is an expert in self defence they can say they are an expert in self defence training or self defence techniques and strategies. May be then there will be less disagreements on the subject.

Is there really a difference there, though?

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?

No. Sport is neither "real world", nor genuinely related to self defence at all. The idea of being able to apply techniques as being equal to self defence is to not understand the topic.

I would say that one can gain experience without being an expert. Where this really matters is when someone begins teaching others.

Can you take CPR lessons and remember the skills when you need them in a crisis? Sure. That's possible and happens all the time. And, if you are diligent, take refresher courses and practice the skills, your chances of remembering them when you need them go up significantly. But does this make you an expert in CPR?

Now, let's look at it from the other side. Would you want to learn CPR from someone who is not even a qualified medical professional?

But, "self defence instructor" isn't as specific as CPR. It's a skill set, similar to that of being a nurse practitioner. Is a person who graduates from nursing school an expert? Would you take a nurse, who's never worked in a hospital or in any capacity as a nurse, and put that person in charge of teaching other nurses?

In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise. I disagree. You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills. But that does not equal expert.

Why is being an "expert" (we'll come back to definitions of this in a bit) relevant here? A teacher/instructor isn't necessarily an "expert", they're a teacher. Was you 4th Grade teacher an "expert" in any of the subjects they taught you? Did they have phD's in any or all of the subjects taught?

To take that to the CPR idea here, it's really not the same thing at all. Teaching CPR is teaching a mechanical method for a purpose (resuscitation), and is a specific skill/technique. Self defence is not. Self defence is an overall understanding of the realities of modern violence, assault, social structures, psychology, social anthropology, and more. Then, there can be some techniques. Maybe. As a last resort.

You're trying to equate self defence to only being that last part (the techniques). That's not what self defence is about. It's such a last-thought that the history of applying them "for real" is really besides the point. Expertise in self defence in in understanding... it's not a physical thing. Honestly, Steve, the biggest issue here, and in the previous thread about this, is that you frankly don't have the first clue of what self defence is, or what would make someone an expert in that field. That's because it's not something you've ever done, or had as a focus... you don't care about it... and, now, in these discussions, you're trying to relate it to what you think it is, based on what experience you do have (BJJ, sports etc). It's really nothing like what you think it is.

The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot. In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots. There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots. And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.

Once again, let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane. Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane? I would say no. In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.

Would that person be competent as a flight instructor? I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator. I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here. There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple. People learn things in predictable stages:

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application. In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge. How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.

Again, the pilot is not an accurate analogue. The guy teaching about proper methods in an emergency is more what we're talking about here. The pilot might easily be able to perform "expertly", but that's quite a different application of the word.

With the Blooms Taxonomy, expertise in self defence (deep knowledge of the subject) is absolutely covering all the bases you list. First, you start with knowledge (learning about the different forms of violence, social and asocial, pre-fight triggers, the psychology of a predator, understanding body language and applications of tonality, recognizing social conventions, and knowing when to break them, and so on). Then you get to comprehension (where you can start to predict behaviour patterns through understanding the interplay of the learnt factors, and the knowledge gets solidified). Then it's application (which doesn't necessarily mean physical techniques, but can involve them; more realistically, it involves observation, awareness, predictive skills, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, both passive and aggressive, and so on), which leads to analysis (the application of the knowledge, as detailed previously, is tested against comprehension [by ensuring and applying predictable behavioural responses and so on] in realistic fashion to ensure it matches and is correct/effective). That, through repetition, leads to synthesis, where the tactics and strategic application of the knowledge and comprehension is taken on in all aspects of daily life. Throughout all of this is constant evaluation, new information is absorbed (going back to the "knowledge" stage, creating a cycle, rather than a linear methodology), comprehended, applied, analysed, synthesised, and evaluated. And none of that involved going out cruising bars and picking fights with bikers.

And an expert doesn't have to be competent, for the record. They just have to be expert in their field... and, in self defence, that does not mean physical combative techniques.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread. If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system. If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.

And if that defined curriculum is a self defence one, what then? Or do you not think there could be one (here's a clue, there are many defined self defence curriculums, including the one I employ. They may not be exhaustive, but they are certainly defined curriculums)?

Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.

Visualization is a terrific training tool. However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application. It does not REPLACE application. Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.

And there are stages beyond application. Competence is application. Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.

Visualisation can be perfectly valid in this area, though, Steve. Imagination is far more important when it comes to the comprehension, analysis, and evaluation stages of your cited Taxonomy than any physical experience. In science (which is really far closer to this than sports), they're called thought experiments. Again, though, you're thinking application applies to something it doesn't in this topic.

Unless you're Batman, or some sort of vigilante, you're not an expert on self-defense. I would also say that law enforcement and ex-military aren't experts in self defense either. They're experts in law enforcement and military tactics respectively. Neither completely translates into self-defense tactics.

First sentence, completely wrong. The rest I agree with.

Who said 100s?

I do agree that the term self defense is too broad. It's hopelessly abstract.

No, it's not. You simply don't understand it.

How many do you think, ballen? Zero? If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.

Then let's take me. You've stated a number of times that I can't be able to teach self defence, I can only teach a "system", and that I can't be an "expert" on self defence... but I've had a number of experiences where I've had to defend myself, with varying degrees of success. I've had a five-on-one assault, where I simply wore a lot until I could get away. I've been threatened and knocked someone out pre-emptively. I've applied restraint and removal (think "Security hold") methods on a guest at a friends party. I've verbally and physically de-escalated. And I've pre-emptively stopped an assault from happening by removing the element of surprise. I've used my awareness to know when to leave a location (pointing out the drunk guy wearing knives to the security before I left... I had no reason to engage him). I haven't dealt with a gun, but my instructor has. I haven't disarmed a knife assault, but one of my students has, using what I taught him. Many other students of mine have stories of verbal de-escalation (some from as recent as last week), or physical de-escalation, or, in a couple of cases, physical techniques being employed.

My numbers I'd count at about 15 different encounters, with only about 4 of those getting physical. My guys would number another few dozen encounters.

How's my pedigree for self defence now?

So once is good enough? I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.

I'm agreeing. I have experience to back up what I teach, but the majority of my teachings are from understanding and knowledge/insight, rather than any actual "real world" experience.

I think that it depends upon the activity, but that it's always more than zero.

Now, to be clear, we cultivate expertise in things we do, and as you said, the issue is one of specificity. What I mean is, if your goal is to be an academic, the experience you would accumulate would be research. However, if your goal is to be an expert in DOING something, you must do that thing.

We see this all the time on the internet. There are guys who know everything there is to know about MMA and BJJ. They can talk about strategy or technique all day long, but after a while, it becomes clear to those of us who actually train that they don't. They are academics, and knowing the steps involved isn't the same as doing those steps.

Yeah... you're looking at self defence wrong. It's far more in line with the "research" side of things, than the "MMA" side of things. And I'd still argue that you're confusing being an expert, and doing things expertly.

What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained. I agree.

I really didn't get that from what was said. At all. I wonder if you're just reading things you want to see...

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'd go to the guy who can teach it better, and knows all the variables, knowing what to focus on, and what is of less importance. And, frankly, that's more likely to be the guy that's done the research than the guy who's done it in one set of circumstances only. The guy who's done it can certainly add valuable insight into the mental process that goes on, or how he coped with the stress, but that makes him experienced, not an expert.

I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do. In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert? Nothing left for him to learn?

If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement. I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent. But, do you guys really think he's an expert?

On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application. Doing it is "application" level. NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.

None of the people you mention here are experts. They are people with differing levels of experience. To be an expert is something rather different.

Sounds to me like he was an expert. You can be an academic. And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise. But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?

That's two different things, Steve. That's what you're missing.

So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either? But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model. Right? They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.

So, let's apply this to martial arts: Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp. The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts). But he's an expert in the system. What is he teaching you? The system. What are you becoming competent in? The system. And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself. But, you're not a self defense expert. And neither was your instructor.

This is a pointless hypothetical. You've already decided what the instructor is, and what he isn't.... as well as deciding that they're mutually exclusive. Again, let's take me as an example. I can teach you some near-onto a dozen different systems, some weaponry, some unarmed, some both, and so on. I'm not about to claim to be an expert in anything, but hey, we'll pretend I am, for this. I then run a self defence boot camp. What am I teaching you? Again, here's a clue... it's not any of the systems I have.

And, again, teacher does not equal expert. Trying to link them in this way is not realistic, or really a fair way to discuss the idea of expertise.

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.

That's the thing, Steve, you're not respecting other people's areas of expertise. You've decided that they can't actually be experts in their areas of expertise because you don't understand what that area of expertise is.

Oh, and for the record, I really don't think Ballen was agreeing with you there... your take has been that "real experience" is needed. He was pointing out that real experience isn't really any guarantee, and therefore is not an accurate or adequate criteria. You need to look at other criteria... so, if you actually agree with that, why would you be still thinking that the experience is part of the essential aspect?

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. No problem.

No, it's really not, Steve. Again, you don't seem to get what self defence is. Flying the plane isn't being an expert, it's being a pilot. Flying a plane expertly is being a skilled pilot. Being an expert in regards to piloting would mean you would know all about the different forms of planes, the different flight paths, the different methods of take-off and landing, and so on. When it comes to self defence, it's really not the same thing at all. I mean, flying a plane is largely a routine sequence, often repeated with slight variations. Self defence is kinda, well, opposite. As well as not being a physical skill.

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 haven't alleged, I've stated it bluntly. And I maintain it.

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.

True, but you're focusing on the wrong thing that you're logging the hours in.

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.

Hmm... no. I can't agree with that. For one thing, it's impossible to quantify the applicability of every "technique" that can be taught... but all techniques can (and should) be pressure tested to the point of breaking in order to ensure they match and work within the context.

I'll put it this way. In a knife defence program, I might teach some half-dozen "techniques". If you learn them, and someone pulls a knife on you, you might use one... you're not going to use all six. So, does that mean I should only teach that one, because now we know it "worked", and we don't have that for the others? How about if it didn't work so well, not due to the technique, but due to your execution? Do we just drop it immediately? Or do we re-assess why it didn't work, and improve to make sure it has a higher return in future?

The point is, you simply can't have all techniques having been "done". It's just not practical or possible. This is yet another reason you can't insist on experience for expertise in this area.

Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.

Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.

Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.

We must train in very different ways, Steve. We train to application, not just competence. And, again, if the system is a self defence one, what then?

The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific. In other words, he's not teaching "self defense". He's teaching his system. And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does. A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer? Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject. Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people. They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people. And so on. This is how martial arts work. A guy develops his system. He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.

The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system. The expertise being gained isn't "self defense." It's the system. And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.

Looking once again at the pilot, if Capt. Sullenberger trained a pilot who never flew a plane (simulators only), that student is still benefiting from his instructor's expertise. But, there are a million little things that Sulley knows that a trainee won't. Things that you only get by doing. And, so when that student becomes an instructor, teaching Sulley's method for flying a plane (without ever actually flying a plane), he will not pass those things on. And his students become instructors... and pretty soon, we have thousands of schools popping up all over the world teaching people to fly planes without actually flying planes. Are any of these people expert pilots? I'd argue that they are not. Rather, they are experts in Sulley's flightless pilot training system.

Then what, in a codified system, makes it not self defence? I'm curious as to what you think stops it from being possible to have a codified self defence system here.... bearing in mind, of course, that codified doesn't necessarily mean set in stone... any more than BJJ is both codified and not set in stone.

In the other thread, Tgace posted a link to an article where a guy discusses the difference between some firearms. I might be remembering it wrong, but the gist of it as I recall was that he was training SWAT guys, and in the course of the training, some would have really expensive, shiny, firearms that were showy, but not reliable. He then went on about which firearms he preferred and why. The choice of the showy, expensive firearms on the part of the trainees had everything to do with their lack of experience. And his choices, and the depth of his rationale behind his choices, had everything to do with the depth of his experience. You can't teach experience. And you can't be an expert without it.

As ballen and others are, I think, beginning to understand, it's about being aware of exactly what one's areas of expertise really are.

You can give experience. And you can be an expert without it (in the context of self defence training). I'm more than aware of what my areas of expertise are... are you aware of where your experience might be leading you to less-than-expert assessments?

Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread. Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful. BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful. MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.

But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either. In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method. Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills. But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense. Might be, but not necessarily.

Why is this? I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.

Self defence is not vague, Steve. You not understanding what it is doesn't make it vague. It's broad, but that's something entirely different. Again, you're deciding what these systems are without knowing what they are... and you're deciding what they aren't without knowing what the thing you say they aren't actually is.

That said, I agree that many arts/teachers use the idea of "self defence" as a marketing tag, or sales line, without thinking it's anything more than physical (fighting) techniques. And I'm one of the first to point out the discrepancy. But to say they're not teaching self defence because it's a system is rather presumptive, don't you think?

It would be hard. I'm not suggesting that schools do this. There are two ways to approach this. First, and probably the easiest, is for a school to simply be more specific and up front about what they're teaching and what they're not teaching. If an instructor has no practical experience, maybe touting him as an expert is wrong.

Second is to make a show of giving students large sums of cash in high crime neighborhood and then see if they can walk out without being killed.

The first is basically you claiming that your idea of no schools actually teaching self defence is correct (it's not), and the second is not self defence, it's provoking fights. Neither are accurate.

I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system. Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art. The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ. You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo. Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else. It seems obvious, I know.

Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.

Self defence is not vague, it's broad. Big difference.

I would agree with this. While all experts will have practical experience, not everyone with practical experience will be an expert.

The first step to expertise is competence. While anyone can make a mistake, if the mistakes are due to a lack of competence (skills gaps, chronic apathy/complacence or whatever), then a person cannot be an expert, by definition.

Okay, then, define "expert".

Sounds like a good start: you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in. Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?

Not even close. I'd say, as a martial art, none of them do. They may have aspects that can be applied, but that's not the same thing.

My opinion is that the term "self defense' is so abstract as to be worthless. A LEO might have a lot of valuable and useful information to share based upon his/her experience and training. While there may be some overlap, a bouncer would have slightly different (but perhaps equally valuable and useful) information to share. A sport fighter would have a different piece of the puzzle.

Which is best for self defense? Well, that depends as much on the student as the system. Remember, I'm not saying you can't get to the point where you could likely use your skills when necessary. Excellent training will get you very, very close to competent. What I'm saying is that you can't progress beyond that point without applying the skills in the wild (so to speak).

Of course not. I agree completely. I have said repeatedly that while I believe all experts have experience, not everyone with experience is an expert.

The tricky part sometimes is accurately identifying the area of expertise. Dennisbreene brought up the point that there are experts and then there are EXPERTS among the experts. Expertise IS subjective and represents a range of experience, skill and ability.

I think this is the issue, Steve. You've been argued against, been given evidence and statements against a lot of these ideas and yet you're still sticking to the same thing. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that others agree with you, or think you've been listening when you just keep repeating the same again.

I think that it's entirely possible to create an effective curriculum. Honestly, the sticking point for me isn't quality of training. The part I think is a little alarming is the idea that people mistake the training for the skill. Can a solid curriculum teach practical skills to a lay person? Sure. Of course. A person might, through years of diligent training, get to the point where he or she is an expert in that system.

Will that person be able to apply those skills outside of training? We can say maybe. We might even be able to say probably. but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.

Again, you're focused on the idea that a system can't be self defence, to which I'd ask "Why not?", as well as the idea that training isn't actual experience. Again, what if that system is self defence? What then?

I think that there are experts, but that it's worth taking a few moments to identify the areas of expertise. Any conversation or debate on the subject of self defense suffers from a lack of specificity. As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless. The conversations inevitably deteriorate because everyone has something different in mind when they think of "self defense."

But, a 5th degree black belt in Judo is, I believe, clearly an expert Judoka and likely a very credible resource if you're looking for self defense training. A former Navy Seal would be an expert in a completely different piece of the puzzle. While you could say that they're both "self defense" experts, I think it's much better to be more specific.

The Judoka may never have been in a self defense situation in his life, so claiming to be an expert in self defense would be wrong, IMO. But, that doesn't mean he has nothing to offer. His expertise in Judo is unimpeachable and valuable.

What if the Judoka is an expert in self defence? How do you separate them out? Can't he be both?

I think there's another good question here that you're raising, Ballen. Do you have to be an expert in order to be an effective instructor?

I'd say that it depends upon the level of the instruction. Several years ago, I took a jiu jitsu seminar as a white belt from a 3rd degree BJJ black belt. Honestly, while a great experience, the only thing I took away from that experience were awesome memories. The actual instruction was so far above my skill level that I lacked the context to even remember it. The purple belts, however, gained a TON, because they could appreciate and benefit from the depth of the instructor's expertise.

But that's a different question than whether or not the person is an expert or the degree of expertise the person has.

Sure... so, do you want to answer the actual question? Does a teacher need to be an expert?

Just a question to throw out to the group. In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific. What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but
had never worked as a cop? This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses. What if that guy was your new commander.

Would you consider him to be an expert? I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.

I wouldn't consider him experienced, as far as "expert", my question would be "expert in what?". Expert in procedure? Sure. Expert SWAT trainer? Probably, if he's accredited and accomplished there.

My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun. And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.

As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense. Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.

Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love." In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract. In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love. You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.

But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple. They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls. Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas. In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love. And these skills are very specific. Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.

In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense. But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.

If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree. Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious. So, yeah. Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything. My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.

Again, the idea of self defence training and martial art training (while separate) are not mutually exclusive.

And, bluntly Steve, you can teach self defence. Believe me, I do it.

I fail to see how.

I actually don't understand where the argument comes from for the OP's question.

Someone claiming to be an expert in self defense without ever actually having to have defended themselves in a altercation would be the same as someone claiming to be an Olympic swimmer but have never actually gone swimming, or even know how to swim for that matter.

I just don't see how.

I may know all 178 different techniques for a certain martial art, but that doesn't make me an expert in doing them.

It all comes down to the difference between knowledge and wisdom IMO. Not that my opinion is worth much.

No, it's not really anything like the Olympic swimming analogy. The swimming one is a measured result with a particular scale, self defence is a broad topic.

Whether he's an expert isn't the question. Clearly, if you think he's credible, he knows a lot about the subject. But can he do it? You've acknowledged that he can't. He's an analyst

What specifically is his expertise? That's the question.

And, I didn't ask whether you can be an expert on a topic. That's a given. Knowledge is a matter of research. I can read all of the instructional books on bjj abd memorize then all. I could study and become an expert on the subject of bjj. But does that mean I can execute any of those techniques? I would argue that I would be functionally incompetent to execute even the simplest of them.

Surely you understand t he difference. An academic knows all about something, but can't necessarily do it.

You're still making the same false connection, though. Self defence is not a physical skill, it's an over-arching, broad topic.

Can he walk the talk, as tgace put it? If not, his expertise is academic. That doesn't mean it is without value. It just means he can't do it.

Self defence is a largely academic topic, though. That's where you've missed the boat.

But what is the difference between someone who knows a lot and someone who can do it?

Edit. Nevermind. As I said before, you argue just to argue. You win. If you actually want to discuss something, let me know.

No, Steve, Ballen was trying to discuss, I as I was with you earlier. You still haven't listened to what has been said, mate.

So you're saying he was experienced. I see a clear difference between this guy and the analyst. Both might have valuable information to share.

You're grasping at straws, Ballen. I don't believe that you don't get the point. I just don't believe you don't see the difference between this guy and your analyst.

You still haven't clarified the idea of "expert", nor understood that self defence isn't a physical skill set (the physical skills are a minor sub-set of self defence).

Definition of expert (n)
ex·pert
somebody skilled or knowledgeable:somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity

By this definition of the word, one can be an expert in something by simply knowing about it.

In my opinion there is a huge difference between knowledge and application. An expert has the knowledge but a "veteran" or "master" has the knowledge AND the ability to apply it.

Case in point, I might be an expert in self defense simply because I know X, Y, and Z techniques will work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can use them or that I am a self defense veteran

Agreed!

A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.

Er... proves what?

 

[Tgace]

Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.

 

[Steve]

Again, the pilot is not an accurate analogue. The guy teaching about proper methods in an emergency is more what we're talking about here. The pilot might easily be able to perform "expertly", but that's quite a different application of the word.

With the Blooms Taxonomy, expertise in self defence (deep knowledge of the subject) is absolutely covering all the bases you list. First, you start with knowledge (learning about the different forms of violence, social and asocial, pre-fight triggers, the psychology of a predator, understanding body language and applications of tonality, recognizing social conventions, and knowing when to break them, and so on). Then you get to comprehension (where you can start to predict behaviour patterns through understanding the interplay of the learnt factors, and the knowledge gets solidified). Then it's application (which doesn't necessarily mean physical techniques, but can involve them; more realistically, it involves observation, awareness, predictive skills, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, both passive and aggressive, and so on), which leads to analysis (the application of the knowledge, as detailed previously, is tested against comprehension [by ensuring and applying predictable behavioural responses and so on] in realistic fashion to ensure it matches and is correct/effective). That, through repetition, leads to synthesis, where the tactics and strategic application of the knowledge and comprehension is taken on in all aspects of daily life. Throughout all of this is constant evaluation, new information is absorbed (going back to the "knowledge" stage, creating a cycle, rather than a linear methodology), comprehended, applied, analysed, synthesised, and evaluated. And none of that involved going out cruising bars and picking fights with bikers.

This is a distinction that I was trying to highlight with ballen. As you point out, Bloom's Taxonomy does apply to academic pursuits. But,there's a very, very important distinction to be drawn between an academic expert and a practical expert. And, as with every field of expertise, there are experts, and then there are those whom the experts call experts. It works the same.

What is different is that an academic can't DO what they know. Or, more accurately, their knowledge far outstrips their ability.

And an expert doesn't have to be competent, for the record. They just have to be expert in their field... and, in self defence, that does not mean physical combative techniques.

I completely disagree. Whether one's expertise is academic or otherwise, in order to become an expert, one must first be competent. If your pursuit is academic, then, as you point out above, you will move right on through Bloom's Taxonomy.

You still haven't clarified the idea of "expert", nor understood that self defence isn't a physical skill set (the physical skills are a minor sub-set of self defence).

I understand that you think self defense is an academic pursuit. That's actually very helpful to know. And, if you're simply teaching strategy and theory, then, it makes sense to me that you could become expert and teach it. I don't think I agree with you, though.

I do agree with you that "self defense" is an umbrella term. Unlike you, though, I don't think there is one definition. It's clear that you believe your definition to be the only right one, but I think that if you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different answers.

 

[Steve]

Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.

For some reason, as I read through this thread, the cliche "Easier said than done," keeps coming to mind.

 

[ballen0351]

Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.

Physically demonstrate to the class in a class setting yes. Tell a war story about this one time in a bar fight no its not needed and means nothing

 

[Tgace]

In the Filipino MA world there's the mystique of some "masters" having participated in "death matches" or having had to leave the country due to having killed someone and various other BTDT memes. Of course the reality is that many of these "death matches" were anything but and some creative license is in play to make people seem "dangerous".

The "thing" with talking about "experience" in unarmed fighting is that most of the people who actually have it are going to be people you probably wouldn't/shouldn't associate with in the first place.

Some "DT Experts" like Marc "Animal" MacYoung use their "street cred" and "bad *** background" as a self-promotion point for their books/seminars/etc. Of course, short of running his criminal history or police contact history how do you verify ones "street cred as a badass"?

 

[ballen0351]

That's the main reason I say real street experience isn't needed. There is no way to verify it so why does it matter. I follow the stolen valor site on Facebook. Every day they post another guy that's claiming spec ops and all this experience and they have none. So teach me in class show me what to do and spare me the one time in band camp stories