Defending a practice

[Cryozombie]

My two cents:

An education does not equal intelligence.

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

And Rich,

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

 

[loki09789]

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

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

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

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

 

[7starmantis]

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

7sm

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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

Paul,


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

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

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

I do like you post.

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

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

Thank You
:asian:

 

[loki09789]

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

7sm

7*,

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

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[loki09789]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

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

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

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

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

 

[someguy]

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

 

[Cryozombie]

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

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

 

[7starmantis]

7*,

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

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

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

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

7sm

 

[loki09789]

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


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

7sm

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

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

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expecting to be reamed for being arrogant and extemporaneous,

Dr. Dave

 

[Brother John]

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

You want to talk about cognitive dissonance?

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

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

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

Your Brother
John

 

[TonyM.]

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

 

[Ceicei]

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

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

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

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

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

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

Your Brother
John

I think you meant to say innovation would be a way to decrease cognitive diossonance. CD might be characterized in this context as the ambilalence one experiences when some part of their system lets them down. The state of anxiety you face while deciding to A) learn more of the system you use, because you must not have known enough if it failed you, or B) cross-train in something else is cognitive dissonance. Dissonance is diminished by making a decision to end the battle in your head btw apparently disparate options.

Just a thought.

D.

 

[Black Bear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Black Bear]

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

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

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

I didn't have 34 to drop, but the ones I had are gone over this last week as well. Interesting phenom.