Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?

[Chris Parker]

Right. Uh, this will be a long one. Sorry 'bout that...

The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.

http://www.kylelamb.com/

http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe

http://vickerstactical.com/

http://www.redbackone.com/

...and on and on.

You missed the questions, as well as what I was saying. Additionally, all you've done is provide a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument (after it, therefore because of it). You haven't shown that such experience is required, you've really just shown a group that trade off it. And honestly, I feel this is all missing the argument here, as it's not really that close to what's being discussed.

I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified.

Hmm. Not in the way you're thinking, no.

Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwize all you are doing is period reenactment.

So... you're saying that you're not trying to imply that real world experience is a requirement for an instructor of such methods, but unless there is real world experience, it's "period re-enactment"? Isn't that a bit contradictory? You don't need it, but you really do?

Tgace, this isn't a tangent. This is exactly what I was hoping this thread would discuss. Whether I could articulate it clearly or not, this is central to the questions I was hoping to talk about.

Except your OP wasn't asking about technical expertise, nor was it asking about a wider knowledge of the subject (what I described as a "deep knowledge", and what Tgace described), it was asking if real world experience was needed. Do you need to have had a number of real world knife defence encounters in order to be able to claim some expertise about self defence law, for example? Blunty, Steve, no, you don't. You just need to have learnt it to the point of expertise. And that's been something you've been told throughout the thread.

For my part, I was just trying to get the topic to the point that we could all agree that there is a distinction. Technical, clinical expertise can be extremely valuable. It's the difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise. It's the bridge that must be made between classroom expertise and real world application, understanding where that gap is.

I don't think anyone has said that simple technical ability doesn't mean you're a self defence expert (for the record, even among many people who think they understand self defence, or train for self defence, I see a hell of a lot of lack of understanding of exactly what that entails... even amongst the membership of this forum), the question has been whether or not you need to have actually defended yourself in order to know what is needed, or to teach self defence. Can real world experience help? Certainly. I think I've said that a number of times. Is it essential? No. You've been told that a number of times as well, by the majority of posters in this thread.

I love the "staying in your lane" concept. It encapsulates exactly what I was thinking, that you have to correctly identify what you're doing, what skills you're developing, and where your area of expertise really lies. And, for the purposes of this thread, I see this lack of awareness in martial arts more often than in any other area where people train and seek to acquire skills. People in martial arts can be alarming ignorant of what they are learning and what they AREN'T learning.

Oh, I see the same thing... possibly more than most do here, if I'm to be honest about it. But in regards to the "staying in your lane" idea... do you think that is only done by the firearms groups? And, really, the amount of ignorance doesn't mean that it's experience (real world encounters) that are lacking, it's that genuine knowledge and understanding is lacking. And I think there are a large number of reasons for that, and that it's more common in "modern" systems, bluntly, but that's another discussion. Could real world experience help? Maybe. But not certainly. And it's also not required, as such knowledge and understanding can be gained without it.

And to the points made earlier, the term self defense is so generic as to be, IMO, almost completely unhelpful. Yet, it's used all the time in martial arts schools flyers, on their doors and in their sales pitches. Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise. The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this. It's overt. I am the instructor of this course. My expertise is this. This is what I will teach you. This is what you will NOT learn in this course.

You get that in just about every other activity/endeavor a human can be involved with, except martial arts. Some martial arts...

Ha, yeah, some martial arts... Look, I've ranted a number of times before about the differences between martial arts and self defence, and that I personally am not a fan (at all!) of martial arts being promoted as "self defence", as I don't feel any of them are. In my classes, "self defence" and "martial arts" are separated... and the separation is explicitly stated, as well as markedly demonstrated. But none of that means that real world experience is required to teach, or understand self defence.

Chris, could you tell me what your areas of expertise are? Specifically? You don't have to list them. Again, to be clear, I don't really want you to list them. I'm wondering if you've ever thought about it to the level of specificity that the instructors Tgace listed have. What I mean is, within the broad category of "self defense", for example, could you tell a prospective student, "This is what I can teach you and this is what I cannot teach you."

Then, if the answer to the above is yes, you could do this, do you? And finally, at some point, if you have never bridged the gap between training and practice, can you claim to have that expertise? Kind of like the distinction between tactics and strategy.

Damn straight, I do. I know what I offer, I know where it comes from, I know how to test it (safely and realistically), I know how to assess other approaches, I know the contexts of everything I do, and I go to great pains to put all of this across to my students. One of my first questions to potential students is to ask what they are wanting out of a martial art experience, and what they are expecting... and, if their requests don't match what I teach, I suggest something else that does. If their expectations are unrealistic, I explain that.

That said, I'm not sure what you're meaning as the distinction between "training and practice" here... I'm very aware of the difference between strategy and tactics, but your usage of "training and practice" would both imply (to me) non-real world experience... so would both fall under the areas I'm saying are required for expertise, as opposed to the requirement you've been looking for.

Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:

http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/

So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?

You missed what makes Iai what it is by only looking at mechanical aspects, for the record. There are reasons the distinction is made. But to your questions at the end (not that I'm sure of any relevance), "pistolcraft" does exist as Koryu (the term for gunnery, commonly matchlock rifles, but also including pistols of various forms, is Hojutsu, or sometimes Hinawajutsu). In terms of what you would have to do, well, that'd be up to you. Same with "when do you 'preserve' an art?". But you're missing the development of Koryu there, so the entire line of questioning is rather pointless.

Morishige Ryu Hojutsu

Seki Ryu Hojutsu

Yo Ryu Hojutsu

Cheesy as this might sound, I agree but still think of the Christian bale movie.

The next question would be which koryu. Would the combat koryu argue that the leo oriented arts are less effective, and then the sport arts have too many rules. Which arts would prohibit actual firing of rounds because they're too deadly? Which arts would focus on muskets?

sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Why would they argue anything like that (and what is a "combat Koryu"?)? As to the last two questions, you need to (one more time) know the context of the art in question. And each will have their own reasons. But none of this is anything to do with "requiring experience".

Relevant article:

http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/

Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.

He's talking about understanding contexts. His understanding comes from his experience, sure, but do I need to have the same experience in order to understand his discussion of the contexts? No.

Now let me throw this old writing of mine into the mix!

http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/martial-art-or-art-form/

And, again, all that shows is that not having a deep knowledge of the subject and context is a flawed approach... and that many don't get the context of what their talking about. There's a number of issues I could bring up with that little post, but they're besides the point here (just suffice to say that the point it's making, despite it's own lack of understanding of the subjects mentioned, is not actually relevant to the point being discussed).

it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious. The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author. And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign. The comments were interesting, too.

I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article. As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.

I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise. And on the other hand, A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person. It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.

Honestly, I'd say that it shows that there are experts in different contexts and subjects, rather than "there are experts, and EXPERTS", as that implies one is below the other. They might be in one area or context, but that doesn't make them less "expert" than the other. And, again, it might show that the author has his take based on his experience, as well as his training, but it doesn't indicate that such experience is required. Just that it has given him part of his understanding.

Hi Chris,

Hey Mike,

In my very first post in this thread, I talked about CPR/First Aid. I mentioned how someone with a simple 8hr course, may/may not be as reliable as compared to someone such as a Paramedic, Doctor, etc, who's odds of using their skills, are much higher. My next post was in response to something TGace said, to which I commented that someone who trains in an art with more contact, would probably be better prepared for the stress, the contact, etc, than someone who never got hit hard before. My next post was in response to Steve, in which I compared training with someone closer to the source of something, rather than someone 5 times removed, and how you may gain more out of the training.

Yep, got all of that.

I've been training for 20+yrs, and during that time, I've seen a wide variety of teachers. I've seen those that've taught those 'questionable' things, and used the excuse that they learned XYZ from instructor A and he said those things will work, so...blah, blah blah. I've also seen those that've have and still do, work in fields in which they've had to use what they know, those that've seen and had to deal with knife attacks in a prison setting, etc. For me, I'd tend to lean more towards the latter of the groups I mentioned.

Well, the first grouping of instructors don't really (to my mind) have what I would call expertise... they're showing gaps in understanding context, for one thing, as well as showing a lack of willingness to apply critical thinking or any form of real testing (which does not, let me be clear, mean going out and using what is being taught to defend yourself in a real encounter). And yeah, depending on what I was looking for, I'd probably go with the second group (as described) as well... but that doesn't mean that I'd make the correlation that such experiences are necessary (frequent experience can help, and I've said that from the beginning, but experience is not essential in the particular individual teaching).

Now, you put yourself into the group as well, and asked if you fit the bill, after having dealt with numerous assaults. Yes Chris, you'd pass. I say that, because IMO, if someone has the experience, chances are, their entire training program will most likely consist of things that'll stand a high chance of working.

Ah, but I teach a whole mess of things that I've never dealt with in "real life"... do I still pass there? If I do, then experience isn't necessary... and I'd suggest going through my old posts on knife defence here to see whether you think what I say holds up. You've been involved in a number of those...

Let me ask you this: In your opinion, when do you feel that experience isn't necessary?

When the training methods are adequate. When is that? Well, what's the context? What's the skill set? What are the training methods?

Really, when it all comes down to it, I am saying that the experience gained in training, if the training is adequate and realistic, is enough to gain expertise. Real life experience might help, it might not... it really depends on what came before, in that case.

Actually..and Steve can correct me if Im wrong. I think the question is if a "style/school" and possibly an instructor should have some experience actually doing something vs an instructor who is teaching something thats was based on the real world experience of a person 10 generations ago.

How many times removed from "doing it" can a teacher get before what he/she is teaching becomes questionable in regards to combat application?

So what's the solution? No-one can teach self defence until they've been involved in at least 10 real life encounters, including at least 4 with weapons, and at least 2 against groups? It's impractical, really, as well as unnecessary. What keeps it from becoming "questionable" is the application of proper/realistic training methods, and a real understanding of the subject and context.

This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress. I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain). But, they actually do a lot of flying. They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.

This brings up another aspect of learning... how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.

You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable. Keep it as realistic as possible. But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations. Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.

To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced. In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions. And things are learned in a particular order. You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated. You don't fly until you've got the classroom training. The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills. So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.

Are you suggesting that, in order to develop a level of expertise, these trainee pilots should put a plane into a crash landing to see if they can land it safely? Or pull out of an out of control dive? No, it's not necessary. The experience in training, if it is realistic, is enough... after all, it's designed to be.

I'll take full responsibility for being unclear. The title of the thread wasn't well thought out, but in the first post, I said this: "Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?"

The nature of expertise is really what I was interested in from the beginning, and I'm glad to see that the thread went that direction in spite of my original lack of clarity. I think it's been very well established that someone can transition from understanding something to doing something. We make that leap all the time, and in fact, it's an unavoidable step. What I was thinking about from the beginning was this idea that a person is an expert on something he or she has never actually done.

Hope this clears it up.

Cool. Hopefully you can see now that expertise is context-dependent, and yes, you can get expertise in many things without "experience" in the real world. In fact, it's advisable.

 

[Tgace]

If anybody is not "getting it" here brother it appears to be you. The question from the beginning is simple. How many generations removed from "experience" can you get before the art is no longer "combat relavent" (or more aptly is it stuff you would trust to work in a real fight?)?

I think it's a fair question...at some point SOMEONE had to have had "experience" (I would hope) or these Martial arts wouldn't be very Martial. The RBSD guys tend to parade around the fact that their teacher was a cop/commando/SEAL/Outlaw Biker...whatever, while some arts like the Bujinkan like to use a dudes experience from generations ago to tout their arts "street cred".

Sure a Criminologist who never left acedemia is an "expert" at crime and has more "expertise" on the subject than a cop like me. But without the experience of people like me to influence, update and provide data for the Criminologist his "expertise" becomes dated. If you want to know how to police in the 1970's thats your affair....much like learning the combat skills of the 16th Century. Sure there can be some crossover into the modern times but I'll take some more updated expertise influenced by experience thank you very much.

You keep on implying that we are saying a teacher needs to get into fights to have credibility, but this is a conceptual discussion (at least to me) vs a "your art sucks because your teacher hasnt killed someone" discussion.

And to throw a different curve on things. We have been discussing the difference between "expertise" and "experience". What about the difference between "training" and "experience"? Is that a different discussion?

A quick google of "experience vs expertise" and "training vs experience" reveals that this is a debate not limited to martial arts.

 

[Chris Parker]

If anybody is not "getting it" here brother it appears to be you. The question from the beginning is simple. How many generations removed from "experience" can you get before the art is no longer "combat relavent" (or more aptly is it stuff you would trust to work in a real fight?)?

So... when most of the thread's participants are saying the same thing as myself (perchance not as vocally, admittedly...), I'm the one "not getting it"? Okay.... but for the record, that's not the question from the beginning... let's take (another) look at it (bolding mine):

We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense." Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport. We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."

The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent. Sport people train for sport. Other people train for other things.

My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?

That is not asking how many generations removed you can get, it's asking whether or not direct personal (real world) experience is required to become an "expert".

I think it's a fair question...at some point SOMEONE had to have had "experience" (I would hope) or these Martial arts wouldn't be very Martial. The RBSD guys tend to parade around the fact that their teacher was a cop/commando/SEAL/Outlaw Biker...whatever, while some arts like the Bujinkan like to use a dudes experience from generations ago to tout their arts "street cred".

Yeah... using Bujinkan articles isn't really something that's going to sway me... I tend to come down on the opposite side to them, you realize. With Dougs article there, well, it comes across to me as attempting to logically refute criticism without needing to actually change or investigate what they're doing in the first place. And I know a fair amount of RBSD guys who don't make any such claims... But if you're going to ask "how far removed", as I said in the last post, that comes down to how realistic and accurate the training remains. In one of my systems, for instance, I'd still back it completely... and we're some 11 generations, or 350 years past it's usage and development....

Sure a Criminologist who never left acedemia is an "expert" at crime and has more "expertise" on the subject than a cop like me. But without the experience of people like me to influence, update and provide data for the Criminologist his "expertise" becomes dated. If you want to know how to police in the 1970's thats your affair....much like learning the combat skills of the 16th Century. Sure there can be some crossover into the modern times but I'll take some more updated expertise influenced by experience thank you very much.

Tgace, I haven't argued that. But the thread topic is about the instructor themselves having the personal experience... and, provided the training comes from a realistic place, the instructor themselves doesn't need to have had the experience themself... okay? That's been my point from the get-go.

You keep on implying that we are saying a teacher needs to get into fights to have credibility, but this is a conceptual discussion (at least to me) vs a "your art sucks because your teacher hasnt killed someone".

Once again, the OP:

My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?

If that isn't talking about saying the teacher (of self defence) needs to have defended themselves in a real altercation (or preferably a number), we're probably reading different words... Steve has then asked the exact same question a number of times. When presented with examples, he continued to ask.

And to throw a different curve on things. We have been discussing the difference between "expertise" and "experience". What about the difference between "training" and "experience"? Is that a different discussion?

Sigh... that's been part of it as well. In fact, I brought up "is training sufficient experience" early on, and Steve basically said "no, training is not experience". So, no, not a different curve, one already done.

A quick google of "experience vs expertise" and "training ve experience" reveals that this is a debate not limited to martial arts.

And I don't think anyone has said it is... hell, from the first page we were discussing non-martial art examples....

 

[Tgace]

Sigh... that's been part of it as well. In fact, I brought up "is training sufficient experience" early on, and Steve basically said "no, training is not experience". So, no, not a different curve, one already done.

I'd have to backtrack to find it, but I think what he said was that "Training is experience in TRAINING". I could attend police academies all around the world and become experienced in being TRAINED as a Cop...hell I guess I could become an "Expert" at police training by doing that. But until I hit the street and apply that training I would still be a "rookie" even if I had 20 years of training.

 

[Chris Parker]

Does being experienced make you "expert", though? Or just "experienced"? And can an expert be less experienced than the 20 year vet? If not, why not? If so, where's your limit of necessary experience?

And, as the context was self defence, is there really the opportunity, or requirement, for a teacher to have 20 years experience on the streets as well? The context is very different between a cop (who's job is to be on the streets) and a self defence teacher (who's job is to know what is the best way to prepare students for the possibility of needing to defend themselves)... and, as a result, the requirements are very different as well.

 

[Tgace]

Does being experienced make you "expert", though? Or just "experienced"? And can an expert be less experienced than the 20 year vet? If not, why not? If so, where's your limit of necessary experience?

And, as the context was self defence, is there really the opportunity, or requirement, for a teacher to have 20 years experience on the streets as well? The context is very different between a cop (who's job is to be on the streets) and a self defence teacher (who's job is to know what is the best way to prepare students for the possibility of needing to defend themselves)... and, as a result, the requirements are very different as well.

True.

In the end is there really a way to provide "experienced" martial arts instructors wholesale as part of a systematic art? Most likely not.

When it comes to the tactical/firearms world this is easier to do because there have been enough wars and operational engagements through the years to provide "experienced" people who then went on to become "experts" through their own training. As I attempted to illustrate in an earlier post. And a percentage of their students are military/LE who are more likely to apply this training as well.

I'd say that experience adds more value to expertise than expertise will have without it....

 

[Chris Parker]

And that I agree with. The question was not "can experience help", because I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree with the idea that it can.... and when coupled with established expertise, it's even more likely to.... the question was "is it possible to gain expertise without experience" (paraphrasing here)... and that's what I've been arguing against (the idea that it's a necessary requirement).

 

[Tgace]

Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.

 

[Steve]

Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.

Agreed. And to take it one step further, I don't believe that an instructor's expertise can be shared in its entirety with the student. What I mean is, a teacher who is an expert in something can only take a student so far. It is up to the student to take the skills they've learned and through experience take those skill from theory to application to competency.

There's another model for learning. I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy earlier, and shared a version of it which I use and like. Another one that is often used is often called simply a competence matrix, and it looks like this:

View attachment 17839

While Bloom's taxonomy deals primarily with the acquisition and development of expertise, this simple model is a good way to understand the stages of competence, so that you can better assess skills development. Essentially, when you start training, you don't know what you don't know. You are not aware of your incompetence. We see this all the time when people learn a few things and hit the forums, presuming to educate people who have trained for decades on their craft. The key here is that a person at stage 1 is untrainable, because they think they already know everything.

The second stage is conscious incompetence. In order to learn, you have to get here first, where you understand the subject well enough to know that you don't know anything. Some people NEVER GET HERE. Whether it's denial or ego, maybe no one's been honest with them or they are just flat out stupid, they cannot acknowledge their incompetence. It's invisible to them, and so they never improve.

The third step is conscious competence. The difference between Conscious Competence and Unconscious Competence is experience. I don't believe you can train someone beyond Conscious Competence. The move from one stage to the next is personal and experiential.

And, as Tgace pointed out, the extended question we've been discussing is how far removed from this direct, personal experience one can be and still gain practical, useful, credible instruction. In other words, is someone who is Consciously Competent effectively communicate those skills?

 

[Steve]

Does being experienced make you "expert", though?

Not necessarily. But does being inexperienced preclude you from being an expert? I'd say yes.

 

[Chris Parker]

Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.

Then you might not want to look into the origins of most martial arts, cause the idea of the techniques coming from actual use is very much a rarity, especially for older "battlefield" arts. The main exceptions are sporting systems, of course.

Agreed. And to take it one step further, I don't believe that an instructor's expertise can be shared in its entirety with the student. What I mean is, a teacher who is an expert in something can only take a student so far. It is up to the student to take the skills they've learned and through experience take those skill from theory to application to competency.

There's another model for learning. I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy earlier, and shared a version of it which I use and like. Another one that is often used is often called simply a competence matrix, and it looks like this:

View attachment 17839

While Bloom's taxonomy deals primarily with the acquisition and development of expertise, this simple model is a good way to understand the stages of competence, so that you can better assess skills development. Essentially, when you start training, you don't know what you don't know. You are not aware of your incompetence. We see this all the time when people learn a few things and hit the forums, presuming to educate people who have trained for decades on their craft. The key here is that a person at stage 1 is untrainable, because they think they already know everything.

The second stage is conscious incompetence. In order to learn, you have to get here first, where you understand the subject well enough to know that you don't know anything. Some people NEVER GET HERE. Whether it's denial or ego, maybe no one's been honest with them or they are just flat out stupid, they cannot acknowledge their incompetence. It's invisible to them, and so they never improve.

The third step is conscious competence. The difference between Conscious Competence and Unconscious Competence is experience. I don't believe you can train someone beyond Conscious Competence. The move from one stage to the next is personal and experiential.

And, as Tgace pointed out, the extended question we've been discussing is how far removed from this direct, personal experience one can be and still gain practical, useful, credible instruction. In other words, is someone who is Consciously Competent effectively communicate those skills?

The biggest problem with this idea, Steve, is that you're discounting realistic serious training as being "experience" used to gain such expertise. If you were including that, I'd be agreeing with you throughout the thread... but you aren't. My first post in this thread addressed this idea, and I've brought it up a number of times since... in this area (self defence), as well as in other areas (crash-training for pilots, nuclear plant meltdowns, and more) all operate from the idea of expertise (unconscious competence) being developed as a result of proper training.

Additionally, I can think of many different training forms that are geared up specifically to take a student from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, to conscious competence, through to unconscious competence. How do I know? I use them. Constantly. So I'd be disagreeing with your basic premise when it comes to the competency matrix there.

Not necessarily. But does being inexperienced preclude you from being an expert? I'd say yes.

So, to get this straight, after 10 pages of people saying that yes, it is possible, giving multiple examples of such occasions and situations, examples of training actually supplying the "experience" you are saying is required (in place of "real world" experiences), you're still unconvinced, and are still holding to the same idea? Now, you're more than allowed to have your opinion... but you asked for opinions and an answer to your question. You've been given it. Perhaps it's time to listen to it?

 

[Steve]

The biggest problem with this idea, Steve, is that you're discounting realistic serious training as being "experience" used to gain such expertise. If you were including that, I'd be agreeing with you throughout the thread... but you aren't. My first post in this thread addressed this idea, and I've brought it up a number of times since... in this area (self defence), as well as in other areas (crash-training for pilots, nuclear plant meltdowns, and more) all operate from the idea of expertise (unconscious competence) being developed as a result of proper training.

not exactly. I think training is valuable and necessary. You can call it experience if you choose. I just think that it should not be confused with application. With regards to the pilot, for example, as I said before, a pilot must be a competent pilot. There are, in my opinion, no experts at crashing. There are, however, pilots who range from novice to expert, all of whom train and log hours flying. There is a reason pilots track their hours. Further, experienced pilots are more likely to recall their training in crisis situations.

Additionally, I can think of many different training forms that are geared up specifically to take a student from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, to conscious competence, through to unconscious competence. How do I know? I use them. Constantly. So I'd be disagreeing with your basic premise when it comes to the competency matrix there.

okay, we disagree. My belief is that the leap from conscious competence to unconscious competence is experiential and personal. Related to the pilot training, I am training to,of my kids now to drive. I'm teaching them in a manual transmission. We are just starting, so we are in the parking lot. I can teach them a lot, but at some point, we will have to enter traffic. And even when they get their licenses, they will be consciously competent. It takes months, years even, to become an unconsciously competent driver, and only after logging the hours.

And within that skillset, if they don't drive stick shifts for five years, they may be experienced drivers, but the introduction of a neglected, underutilized skill may take them back to conscious competence. Similarly, an experienced pilot in a crisis is actively, consciously recalling skills that were trained and drilled.

So, to get this straight, after 10 pages of people saying that yes, it is possible, giving multiple examples of such occasions and situations, examples of training actually supplying the "experience" you are saying is required (in place of "real world" experiences), you're still unconvinced, and are still holding to the same idea? Now, you're more than allowed to have your opinion... but you asked for opinions and an answer to your question. You've been given it. Perhaps it's time to listen to it?

irony, from the guy who cannot write a post that doesn't accuse someone else of failing to understand, while never, ever considering that the one constant is you. Frankly, if you don't get that what you are saying and what most others in the thread have said are not the same, I can't fix that.

As I said earlier, your cup is full. No discussion is possible if you insist on relating to everyone as the teacher. While you are lecturing, the conversation remains one sided and no one gets it until they acknowledge that you are right. Until then, you will get the last word and insist that it's the other person who doesn't understand. Because, surely, if they did understand, they would agree with you completely. It's arrogant, Chris.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[chinto]

Excellent question!

I have to agree with Frank. Being a nurse, I'm trained in many things I don't actually do on a daily basis (and some I hopefully never will!) But I can tell you from experience, when the time comes... it just kind of "switches" itself on and you go into a kind of... robo-mode... where your training takes over. It's hard to explain... but, you just do it.

Repetition in training is the key to being able to apply learned skills if needed. That is why one's training must adhere to some basic principles. In regards to martial arts, knowing one's lineage, and where their particular principles came from is an important part of understanding the answer to your question.

Do some practicioners know the "need" for a high, jumping, flying side kick? Or have you simply been repeating what's been passed down for generations? Could it be possible, that initially, that manuever was involved in the system because it was once necessary to be able to take someone off a horse? How likely is that skill-set needed today? Knowing and understanding the principles behind what it is you're doing sheds light on the practicality of one's training.

In the root system in which I train, it is believed one should constantly be evaluating their training and adapting it to today's environment. That requires actually being aware of what's going on in one's environment, and applying the principles learned to dealing with various scenarios.

That's where the dojo becomes a lab to experiment, evaluate, and analyze. Keep in mind, there's no "super-system" of martial arts. We all train for different reasons, but in terms of self-defense we can only hope to tip the odds in our favor. After all, it only takes one good shot (intentional or not) to the right target to take someone down; regardless of rank.

Absolutely!!! having "Seen the Elephant " as an EMT you are absoulutly right! and having been in a real altercation I can tell you that it also kicks in and you will do what you trained to do! if you train constantly to conform to a set of rules, you will more often then not even on the street revert to your training that way. so if you are a sport fighter practice at times punching through the bag, and things so you have that training to kick in. Also practice your traditional kata as they are about self defense in most systems.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

Hello.

Yep, got all of that.

Ok.

Well, the first grouping of instructors don't really (to my mind) have what I would call expertise... they're showing gaps in understanding context, for one thing, as well as showing a lack of willingness to apply critical thinking or any form of real testing (which does not, let me be clear, mean going out and using what is being taught to defend yourself in a real encounter). And yeah, depending on what I was looking for, I'd probably go with the second group (as described) as well... but that doesn't mean that I'd make the correlation that such experiences are necessary (frequent experience can help, and I've said that from the beginning, but experience is not essential in the particular individual teaching).

Hmm...perhaps I'm not following, but your last post to me, you said that the experience is gained thru training. But my point is, if the training sucks.....and of course, how many people are you going to find that are actually going to admit that they're teaching crap? Probably not many...lol. I mean, let's use youtube and the Bujinkan for example. How many discussions have taken place (there's one at MAP, on good/bad Buj clips) on what is good and what is bad? Numerous. You've seen someone who posted a Buj clip, and well...it sucked..clearly, due to the comments that we see from others. Yet the person who put that clip up, in their heart, really thinks they are teaching quality stuff and that they don't suck...when in reality, they do.

Ah, but I teach a whole mess of things that I've never dealt with in "real life"... do I still pass there? If I do, then experience isn't necessary... and I'd suggest going through my old posts on knife defence here to see whether you think what I say holds up. You've been involved in a number of those...

I can see how you could be setting me up, depending on what I say here Chris..lol. Likewise, I too, teach things that I've never dealt with in real life. Let me clarify. When I was teaching on a regular basis in my Kenpo class, I was teaching at someone elses school. I had to teach the curriculum. Whether or not I thought something sucked, I still taught it. Now, maybe it sucked because *I* didn't understand it or....maybe it just really sucked..lol. In any case, there were times when I'd show something, have them drill it, and then say, "Ok, now I'm going to show you what *I* would do, to address this same situation." The end result was the class liking and preferring what *I* taught, vs. what was required of the material. Now, I'd assume that in your case, and in mine, we're teaching some common sense, high percentage things....things that we learned from someone else, who may've had success with them in real life. If the stuff is making sense, and fits the bill of what I said, yeah, I could probably accept that, but of course, I'd probably lean more towards the SEAL sniper who's got numerous tours overseas, who's actually walked the walk, over the guy who's done nothing but shoot stationary targets.

When the training methods are adequate. When is that? Well, what's the context? What's the skill set? What are the training methods?

Really, when it all comes down to it, I am saying that the experience gained in training, if the training is adequate and realistic, is enough to gain expertise. Real life experience might help, it might not... it really depends on what came before, in that case.

See above. But of course, as I said, I can go along with some of what you said, on the condition that the training is realistic. And as I said, as we both know, what someone calls realistic and whether or not it really is, is up for serious debate.



So what's the solution? No-one can teach self defence until they've been involved in at least 10 real life encounters, including at least 4 with weapons, and at least 2 against groups? It's impractical, really, as well as unnecessary. What keeps it from becoming "questionable" is the application of proper/realistic training methods, and a real understanding of the subject and context.



Are you suggesting that, in order to develop a level of expertise, these trainee pilots should put a plane into a crash landing to see if they can land it safely? Or pull out of an out of control dive? No, it's not necessary. The experience in training, if it is realistic, is enough... after all, it's designed to be.



Cool. Hopefully you can see now that expertise is context-dependent, and yes, you can get expertise in many things without "experience" in the real world. In fact, it's advisable.[/QUOTE]

 

[MJS]

I'd have to backtrack to find it, but I think what he said was that "Training is experience in TRAINING". I could attend police academies all around the world and become experienced in being TRAINED as a Cop...hell I guess I could become an "Expert" at police training by doing that. But until I hit the street and apply that training I would still be a "rookie" even if I had 20 years of training.

Interestingly enough, how many times have we seen, during discussions of scenario training, that its not the same, that the 'attacker' isn't going to attack like the bad guy on the street, etc, etc. etc. COUNTLESS times! LOL! So, yes, using your analogy, when I was in the DOC academy, we did numerous cuffing drills, cell extractions, etc, yet its a hell of alot different when you're rolling around trying to cuff the dirtbag who doesnt WANT to be cuffed or removed by force, from his cell.

 

[GaryR]

Wow, lots of debate. The answer really isn't that complicated. My answer will probably replicate that of many others, I didn't read the whole thread.

There is no substitute for real experience. Thus an instructor who has more real world hands-on will likely be more competent to teach such skills, and appreciate the mental / physiological aspects of dealing with the fight, adrenal dump, etc. A teacher who has never used his skills in reality, cannot, and does not quite know what it takes to face a life or death situation and pull out the tools and mindset required.

But regardless of how many fights you have been in, the more training the better. Scenario training can get close, damn close. With the right gear (red man suit, bullet man suit, et al), and with properly structured scenarios, the student can experience the adrenal dump and respond to full speed and full power attacks in kind. This training allows you to practice, better set yourself up as far as when to adrenalize, (not too soon, not too late). Also how to better control breathing, combat tunnel vision with scanning, auditory exclusion, and best utilize the tachy psyche effect. So even an instructor who has been in some real world stuff, will certainly need to continue to hone these type of skills in their own training and harness the skills in the students. It just gives the instructor a better point of reference to work from.

This type of state induced learning is vital. Point sparring and sport doesn't get that close, your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Best,

G

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

This type of state induced learning is vital. Point sparring and sport doesn't get that close, your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Best,

G

Hey Gary,

I thought your post was excellent except for this last line. Scenario Based Training is an excellent training tool just like you described in your post. However it shouldn't be taken as the only training tool. Sparring, Rolling (ie. grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc. all give you things that you need. Sparring can be light and that may help someone gain confidence and timing. When you up it to Full Contact particularly the first few times then watch that adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, etc. all kick in. Over time it lessons of course with repetition and training. Rolling can be light, playful and some times just used to get the practitioner to relax and move from position to position. (we call that positional rolling in IRT) However, of course it can be full on resistance where the other practitioner is doing everything possible to submit you. That can burn someones motor up real quick if they are not used to being relaxed. You can also get an adrenaline surge as well. Kata training in a two person format can be used very, very effectively to get precision, technique and yes it can even induce stress as well when trained correctly. Technique training allows refinement under a controlled situation so that you can gain the necessary skills to evetually have the potential to utilize the skill. Of course there is more but to each and more ways to train but these give us some ideas. I look to an overall comprehensive appraoch. If you have several methodologies then you are giving yourself a better opportunity to ingrain the necessary skill set so that you might be able to use it. Just my 02. for what it is worth.

 

[GaryR]

Hey Gary,

I thought your post was excellent except for this last line. Scenario Based Training is an excellent training tool just like you described in your post. However it shouldn't be taken as the only training tool. Sparring, Rolling (ie. grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc. all give you things that you need. Sparring can be light and that may help someone gain confidence and timing. When you up it to Full Contact particularly the first few times then watch that adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, etc. all kick in. Over time it lessons of course with repetition and training. Rolling can be light, playful and some times just used to get the practitioner to relax and move from position to position. (we call that positional rolling in IRT) However, of course it can be full on resistance where the other practitioner is doing everything possible to submit you. That can burn someones motor up real quick if they are not used to being relaxed. You can also get an adrenaline surge as well. Kata training in a two person format can be used very, very effectively to get precision, technique and yes it can even induce stress as well when trained correctly. Technique training allows refinement under a controlled situation so that you can gain the necessary skills to evetually have the potential to utilize the skill. Of course there is more but to each and more ways to train but these give us some ideas. I look to an overall comprehensive appraoch. If you have several methodologies then you are giving yourself a better opportunity to ingrain the necessary skill set so that you might be able to use it. Just my 02. for what it is worth.

All excellent points Brian. Perhaps I should have qualified my point with..doesn't get close to the "feeling" of a real encounter if that makes sense? Being comprehensive is key. All of the things you listed build the skill sets that you ultimately can *use* during a fight, or during the closest you can get via Scenario / Adrenal stress training. Two man drills, sparring,(light, heavy), solo work, tactile sensitivity work (push hands, etc.), all must haves. Point being, you can do kata or soft sport sparring until you are blue in the face, it won't get you to that adrenal stage where the rubber meets the road, and the best laid plans of mice and men can fly out the window. I think once you get up to "full contact", your talking the realm of AST as well. If you don't have the technical skill to begin with it can never be used, but if you don't practice that technical skill as close to reality as possible it can all be for not. I think we are on the same page here--all of the training modalities should be used, unfortunately many don't seem to get past the tag game of sparring.

Best,

G

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm...perhaps I'm not following, but your last post to me, you said that the experience is gained thru training. But my point is, if the training sucks.....and of course, how many people are you going to find that are actually going to admit that they're teaching crap? Probably not many...lol. I mean, let's use youtube and the Bujinkan for example. How many discussions have taken place (there's one at MAP, on good/bad Buj clips) on what is good and what is bad? Numerous. You've seen someone who posted a Buj clip, and well...it sucked..clearly, due to the comments that we see from others. Yet the person who put that clip up, in their heart, really thinks they are teaching quality stuff and that they don't suck...when in reality, they do.

Ha, yep, agreed! I never meant to imply that all training is equal... but that (proper, effective, serious) training is what is required to gain expertise in these areas. Yeah, a lot of training out there is far from optimal... but it should also be remembered that a common cry from such poor examples can be "but I've used it in real life!"... which doesn't seem to add to their expertise.... instead, it just reinforces their poor training habits even more.

I can see how you could be setting me up, depending on what I say here Chris..lol. Likewise, I too, teach things that I've never dealt with in real life. Let me clarify. When I was teaching on a regular basis in my Kenpo class, I was teaching at someone elses school. I had to teach the curriculum. Whether or not I thought something sucked, I still taught it. Now, maybe it sucked because *I* didn't understand it or....maybe it just really sucked..lol. In any case, there were times when I'd show something, have them drill it, and then say, "Ok, now I'm going to show you what *I* would do, to address this same situation." The end result was the class liking and preferring what *I* taught, vs. what was required of the material. Now, I'd assume that in your case, and in mine, we're teaching some common sense, high percentage things....things that we learned from someone else, who may've had success with them in real life. If the stuff is making sense, and fits the bill of what I said, yeah, I could probably accept that, but of course, I'd probably lean more towards the SEAL sniper who's got numerous tours overseas, who's actually walked the walk, over the guy who's done nothing but shoot stationary targets.

Ha, me setting anyone up....? Never....

Of course, your comments have a few things that would need to be looked at... firstly, when you show what "you would do", is that based on genuine experience (real life experience), or is it based on your expertise/knowledge of your system and approach, gained through your years of training? It's great that the class preferred your methods, but if that's (as you implied) coming from "things (you've) never dealt with in real life", how is that saying that experience is required beyond training experience? And, really, when it comes to the SEAL sniper, are you learning to be a sniper from him, or to handle a handgun? If the former, then sure... if the latter, then I'd suggest that the guy who's well trained in using a handgun (even if "just against stationary targets") would be my choice.

See above. But of course, as I said, I can go along with some of what you said, on the condition that the training is realistic. And as I said, as we both know, what someone calls realistic and whether or not it really is, is up for serious debate.

Which was essentially my next line in my post... it needs to be good, solid, realistic, effective training... but then again, "real experience" can be far from effective, good, solid, or anything else....

Now, Steve. Arrogant is hardly the worst thing I've been accused of... and it's not really something I'd argue against! But seriously, I have (in our PM conversation) detailed to you each case of other members telling you the same thing (that yes, you can train to expert level without real life experience), including pointing out their caveats and conditions, I've detailed how your contention has not changed from post 1 through to post 104, despite such consistent comments from myself and others, and you're telling me that my "cup is full"? Really? You've told me a few times that I don't consider the fact that I might be wrong... and I've told you that the opposite is the case. Frankly, mate, I speak so definitively precisely because I always consider that possibility before I post... I look at each situation/context from as wide an angle as I can, I take each opposing point of view, and assess my opinion against alternatives. At the end, my opinion is validated, or it's shown to be lacking... in which case I alter it. Nothing you have posted has even come close to challenging my take on things... and you've dismissed out of hand each comment made. You were told "yes, it's possible", to which you answered "is it really?". You were then told (again) "yes, it is", to which you responded "but can you really without real experience?", and so on. I don't need you to agree with me, but you've seriously missed the mark if you think I don't consider alternate opinions and possibilities. Remember, Steve, my background is everything you're talking about (in terms of training in self defence approaches, as well as sporting ones, and so on), and more, whereas yours isn't. Surely that might count for something?

 

[MJS]

Ha, yep, agreed! I never meant to imply that all training is equal... but that (proper, effective, serious) training is what is required to gain expertise in these areas. Yeah, a lot of training out there is far from optimal... but it should also be remembered that a common cry from such poor examples can be "but I've used it in real life!"... which doesn't seem to add to their expertise.... instead, it just reinforces their poor training habits even more.

True. Of course, if that is the case, it may be reason to raise an eyebrow as to whether or not what they claim they did, actually worked in RL.

Ha, me setting anyone up....? Never....

Oh no...never!

Of course, your comments have a few things that would need to be looked at... firstly, when you show what "you would do", is that based on genuine experience (real life experience), or is it based on your expertise/knowledge of your system and approach, gained through your years of training? It's great that the class preferred your methods, but if that's (as you implied) coming from "things (you've) never dealt with in real life", how is that saying that experience is required beyond training experience?

I'd say a combo of all, in addition to training with those that have had RL success. Yes, I know, just because it worked for them doesn't mean it will for me, but as I said, I'd tend to lean more towards someone who's actually done something outside of the training atmosphere.

And, really, when it comes to the SEAL sniper, are you learning to be a sniper from him, or to handle a handgun? If the former, then sure... if the latter, then I'd suggest that the guy who's well trained in using a handgun (even if "just against stationary targets") would be my choice.

The sniper should be just as capable using his handgun from an open position, as he would be using his gun from a concealed position.

Which was essentially my next line in my post... it needs to be good, solid, realistic, effective training... but then again, "real experience" can be far from effective, good, solid, or anything else....

So basically, if I'm following you correctly here, your feelings are that if the training is done in the dojo, and its as alive, real, etc, as possible, then the experience of having done it in RL, isn't that important.