self defense until im old

[drop bear]

Here's the thing. Your sceptics group are not subject matter experts here, and are likely going to go on your self-described credibility and status. That's normal (although the irony of a sceptic group doing so is quite amusing to me)… but it means that they aren't likely to be in a position to be able to ascertain who might be suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect… of course, knowing what it is, and knowing that you haven't been able to address any of my questions at all, coupled with your inability to see any point of view that doesn't match your limited understanding, the arrow is not pointing in my direction.

They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand. I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.

It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.

It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)

 

[donald1]

IMO, picking a dojo is like picking a mattress. Dont just look at it, try it out (is it what you wanted? Is the price range good? )

Go visit a school or schools or maybe talk with the instructor or whoever is in charge (remember: be respective!)

 

[jks9199]

They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand. I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.

It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.

It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)

Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it. Can't say which... In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level... Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...

 

[drop bear]

Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it. Can't say which... In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level... Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...

Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Trolling again?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And nope, just reading threads and speaking the truth... got a problem with the truth there do ya.

 

[Xue Sheng]

all sorts of stuff I don't understand.

most truthful thing you said since you got here

 

[Blindside]

Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.

There are some posts I made as a newbie kenpo purple belt on the internet in oh about 97-99 that I really wish I could get back. Did I think I was a black belt? No, did I think I knew more than I did? Oh yes.

 

[Tgace]

I'm actually gonna agree with Chris on one point. Many people don't know how to properly use scenario training.

Too many people think it's just two people "acting". In reality, a role player has specific guidelines that reinforce the lesson being taught to the student.

One mundane police example.

We train officers to NOT go into rooms during building searches when they see the bad guy inside...we want them to call the BG out to an area of LE control.

So. During scenario/role play the " bright line " for the role player is to surrender if the officer does what we want him/her to do... i.e. if they get called out, then the BG surrenders.

If the officer forgets the lesson he/she may get "shot" with simunition.

Even then, we tell the officer to keep fighting and (assuming the BG gets hit) let the officer "survive" even though hit.

There may be a list of IF/THEN rules for the role player within a scenario depending on what skills/tactics you are trying to reinforce within the role play. You better search that BG after cuffing him or you may still get shot. You better then clear the room the BG came out of or the second BG in there may shoot you. Etc. Etc. Etc.

What scenario training is NOT, is paintball with no stated training objectives or a "no win" scenario where the instructor gets to prove how much better he is than the student.




Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Koshiki]

Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it. Can't say which... In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level... Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...

Yup. It's actually a two-part effect.

Not only do those who know little on a subject often believe they know more than they do, due to their lack of understanding of the breadth of the subject, but those who are very knowledgeable tend to underestimate their own knowledge, based largely on their understanding of just how huge a field of study it is.

In other words, the foolish think they know everything, the wise think they know very little.

It's a good study to have some familiarity with, since it seems to be the one study (outside the Kinsey Report) that everyone over the age of 13 likes to bring up constantly.

Since this thread is beyond recovery anyway...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I'm actually gonna agree with Chris on one point. Many people don't know how to properly use scenario training.

Too many people think it's just two people "acting". In reality, a role player has specific guidelines that reinforce the lesson being taught to the student.

One mundane police example.

We train officers to NOT go into rooms during building searches when they see the bad guy inside...we want them to call the BG out to an area of LE control.

So. During scenario/role play the " bright line " for the role player is to surrender if the officer does what we want him/her to do... i.e. if they get called out, then the BG surrenders.

If the officer forgets the lesson he/she may get "shot" with simunition.

Even then, we tell the officer to keep fighting and (assuming the BG gets hit) let the officer "survive" even though hit.

There may be a list of IF/THEN rules for the role player within a scenario depending on what skills/tactics you are trying to reinforce within the role play. You better search that BG after cuffing him or you may still get shot. You better then clear the room the BG came out of or the second BG in there may shoot you. Etc. Etc. Etc.

What scenario training is NOT, is paintball with no stated training objectives or a "no win" scenario where the instructor gets to prove how much better he is than the student.




Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Very well put Tgace!

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, just taking the piss.

I think I threw that in because some of the responses were like OMG. It was all far too silly, so I just went with it.

Ha, cool.

Thanks for your suggestion, son, but you're not really in a position to educate me on this.

Actually Steve, yeah, I am… the question is whether or not your in a position to learn.

So you do what. domestic violence? Hostage negotiation? Some sort of degree in psychology? I don't know.

You can't seriously suggest you expertise has come directly from being a ninja. That would be ludicrous.

You got your answer. I might also point out that you are now completely changing your question… you asked about my education on awareness and de-escalation… now you're bringing in hostage negotiation? Domestic violence? Really?

Once more, for the record, yes, my education has dealt with such subjects, in particular contexts, but this is not what you were asking… and you are still to be able to even address my questions.

They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand.

Irrelevant, I was saying they aren't educated in this particular area (martial arts, self defence etc).

I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.

I didn't.

It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.

For gods sake, that is a point you have simply never gotten, no matter how simply or patiently it was explained to you. When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source.

One last time, your lack of education and understanding is no-one else's issue.

It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)

What was mentioned? By who? Where? Dude, you really have some major contextual issues in your posts… I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.

You may want to look back at the Dunning Kruger effect, then… and perhaps apply some self reflection.

 

[drop bear]

You got your answer. I might also point out that you are now completely changing your question… you asked about my education on awareness and de-escalation… now you're bringing in hostage negotiation? Domestic violence? Really?

Once more, for the record, yes, my education has dealt with such subjects, in particular contexts, but this is not what you were asking… and you are still to be able to even address my questions.

Your answer is kind of terrible though. The vague references which i assume is designed to reflect what a high speed guy would say. Comes across more like you are being a walter mitty.

So what i am trying to find out is in what context specifically?

I mean that is why i say security guy. So that the context is clear. I am not trying to pretend i am something i am not

 

[drop bear]

You may want to look back at the Dunning Kruger effect, then… and perhaps apply some self reflection.

No you are?

Mate work on your banter.

 

[drop bear]

For gods sake, that is a point you have simply never gotten, no matter how simply or patiently it was explained to you. When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source.

One last time, your lack of education and understanding is no-one else's issue.

Ok. So it is just your opinion you are expressing here?

I thought there was a suggestion that it was fact.

 

[Chris Parker]

Your answer is kind of terrible though. The vague references which i assume is designed to reflect what a high speed guy would say. Comes across more like you are being a walter mitty.

So what i am trying to find out is in what context specifically?

I mean that is why i say security guy. So that the context is clear. I am not trying to pretend i am something i am not

Then re-read it.

No you are?

Mate work on your banter.

Son, you're the one who suggested such a thing… the point is that if you're being shown as so woefully undereducated in this area, but are feeling that you can argue the point (badly), then really, you're the one suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect. Plain and simple.

Ok. So it is just your opinion you are expressing here?

I thought there was a suggestion that it was fact.

You really don't have any clue, do you?

 

[Tgace]

"Arrogance is a creature. It does not have senses. It has only a sharp tongue and the pointing finger."

-Toba Beta

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

Then re-read it.



Son, you're the one who suggested such a thing… the point is that if you're being shown as so woefully undereducated in this area, but are feeling that you can argue the point (badly), then really, you're the one suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect. Plain and simple.



You really don't have any clue, do you?

I still don't have a clue as to what context your expertise in these soft skills have come from. I would have thought it was a pretty simple question.

If you are satisfied with. How did it go?.

22 years in an organisation that specifically gears it's methodology towards such ideas, combined withpractical (real world) experience, on a variety of levels, and continued exposure to better and better information from subject matter experts…

I am going to suggest it translates to never been in a fight,never had to talk your way out of one,probably read Geoff Thompson's book. And is trying to pad your experience to make it seem more practical than it really is.

Which would not be a problem if you owned up to that. Plenty of people have said exactly that. And that they need to seek this information where they get it. I have even said I know one aspect and seek information where I can get it.

The only one trying to be a super spy here is you. And not to belabour the dunning Kruger thing. It was probably on the money.

 

[Chris Parker]

Son, you really should pay more attention… yes, I've been in fights, I've avoided them, I've employed what I teach, so have my students, so have other members of our organisation, and what we teach is supported by and backed up by the rest of the industry and community.

Your lack of understanding of what you've read is really getting in the way of your posts, you know. You still don't get the Dunning Kruger effect either… even when it was explained to you by JKS… pity, really.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.

When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source.

I think you guys are using "being your own source" in two very different ways here.

If I were to be putting out a peer-reviewed paper (in the sciences at least, I'm not so familiar with how it works in the humanities), I would be laying out a framework of what is known on the topic, with references to specific prior publications that the reader could check to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting things. I would then explain the hypothesis I intended to test, the exact methodology I employed to perform that test, the results of the test, my interpretation of the results, and any qualifications or limitations on my confidence in that interpretation of the results. If someone wanted to replicate my experiments to see if they got the same results, they should have most or all of the necessary information to do so in the paper.

What I would not do is say "I've been studying topic xyz for 20 years. I have a Ph.D. in the topic and have been a professor for 10 years. This is the way it is because I said so."

In casual conversation on the topic, it's fine for the Ph.D. to play the authority card and assert that he has more knowledge on the subject than someone who doesn't have that depth of experience. However he should also be able to explain in excruciating detail the studies that led to the current state of knowledge in the field as well as the limitations of that knowledge.

Chris, from reading what you've written here over the years I suspect that your self-defense curriculum has some good stuff. I would have a much higher confidence in that suspicion if you were to explain exactly what that curriculum covers, how it was developed and how it has been tested and improved over the years based on the results of those tests.

For those who are more skeptical, they probably need to see that information before they have any confidence in it.

 

[Chris Parker]

To take it back to where that poorly misunderstood reality was first introduced to our young Drop Bear, it really wasn't anything like this… however he's tried to attribute it to every comment made.

The original comment was in a conversation about "samurai martial training methods"… where the question was (rather facetiously) whether or not samurai killed each other every time they trained together to ensure they could (and would) actually kill the enemy as well. The answer was no, they didn't, and that we know this as we have the same training manuals and records as part of our current training information and methods. We were then asked where our information came from, and the answer was from actually being part of the systems in question, and from training it currently. In other words, we were being asked for the source of information that came from actually training in these systems, to which we (well, I) said that our source for what we do in our training is ourselves, as we know what we do in our training sessions.

This has been pointed out repeatedly, and Drop Bear has continued to miss the actual meaning of the comment. When it comes to a peer reviewed paper, external sources, external data, experiments (thought and physical), and so on all require sources, sure… but saying "based on all of this, my view is…" does not require any source other than the person making the observation itself.

When it comes to my self defence curriculum, bluntly, it's our intellectual property that I don't have a lot of intention to put up publicly, however if someone is genuinely curious, I might be persuaded to offer some details… depending on the person, of course, and the manner of the request.

Of course, excruciating detail is something I can offer on request… but my posts are often long enough as is, yeah?