Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Gerry Seymour]

They pick it up usually. From where ever. That is hence my point on "formal" instruction, you would be looked at weirdly in some cases if you did a survival course and live in the bush. Yet a lot of people who live in it probbly dont know half of whats in a formal course and do fine most of the time and in day to day living.

Hell some people move to a remote location and literally learn everything through trial and error. They have no prior education or experience in the subject or not enough to make a diffrence in the context.

It's not going to be quite so haphazard as picking it up "wherever". They'll be taught the most important parts, and will absorb most of the detail either by being explictly taught or by repetition and observation. Note that you can't compare knowing to keep your head covered with a piece of cloth or how much water to carry, to throwing an effective kick. They aren't the same kind of learning, at all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Doing that, other people or via trial and error, many things are done in life. plenty of skills are picked up via trial and error without any proper direction.

Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So if I do dry land swimming I will be better at climbing mount Everest?


You support this notion that training works. Then you support pressure testing it.

If training works you don't have to test it.

I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It's not going to be quite so haphazard as picking it up "wherever". They'll be taught the most important parts, and will absorb most of the detail either by being explictly taught or by repetition and observation. Note that you can't compare knowing to keep your head covered with a piece of cloth or how much water to carry, to throwing an effective kick. They aren't the same kind of learning, at all.

Covering all bases, some do learn it by themselves. Or in a uncommon model, ie learning it themselves as opposed to family teach them. And i dont belive i was, we can dispute the diffrent skills and how easy/hard they are to pick up and the diffrences in people picking it up ad infitium. (and i do dispute a lot of them to be honest)

Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.

Oh for driving, plenty of people havent had formal instruction in how to do it, you dont need a licence in plenty of places for private property and then a licence isnt nessisarily anything more than a formality. (if its even enforced in the area you drive in) that indeed has the spectrum of, they crashed enough times to figure it out by themselves, their parents taught them in a formal manner, they did a informal manner etc. Lots of variables for learning in reality, and then this isnt covering the people who move and do in deed learn by trial and error and if they love up will die, seen some of them for the reality shows for remote areas.

Kind of mixed the points up in here.

Addendum: I listed a spectrum and the spectrum of "they pick it up somewhere" is apt, no one persons expreince in life is 1:1 to someone elses.

 

[Steve]

Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.

Driving education starts in the classroom, but they’re actually driving in traffic within just a few weeks. I think we need to distinguish now between training and coaching. Learning to drive requires a little training, and a lot of coaching. Central to coaching is that the person is doing the thing they’re learning. So, kids go out and actually drive the car in traffic and are coached along the way.

and even the coaching gives way very quickly to application. If we consider the Actual time involved, it’s Hours of training, days of coaching (maybe up to a few weeks) and a lifetime of application.

 

[drop bear]

Yes you do, or how do you know its effective, if you really beleive that, why do you preach mma, and the stats that so say back its training. At my age, there sre fery few 50 year olds, willing to fight, so I draw from my experience of my past, or sparring sessions I have had recently, most of which,mmy sparring partners are late 20's to early 40's, yes I may find the youngens fast, difficult to control, but my favorite quote from point break movie,, young, dumb, and full of cum, let them think they are special, then show them they aint, maybe I am a minority, 50 year old that spars with younger guys, I dougt it. Education, education, education, no matter how old you are.

I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.

That doesn't create nuance. Train and then test that training to see if it is working.

Not train because it works.

If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.

Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing.

And the nuance is the difference between doing the pieces and doing the whole.

And the extra element you need then is someone with experience of how the pieces are put together.

So for a MMA fight. We train the pieces much more than we train the whole. And we create this picture that is a MMA fight.

But we need to reference people who have created this picture. (Someone who competes) or we could wind up creating a different picture.

MMA is easy to do this because we can see bullcrap pretty easily. Self defense is a world of bullcrap and is much harder.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.

What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.

Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.

But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.

 

[drop bear]

What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.

Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.

But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.

And then people see that and think that is the picture and will try to recreate that.

 

[Steve]

I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.

In this analogy, one can learn to fly a twin engine plane and then actually pilot that plane. One can learn to fly a jet, and then actually pilot that jet. The two skill sets may be complimentary... or they may just seem similar superficially to a lay person.

This is actually a pretty good analogy, because it highlights how easy it is for a lay person to presume that similar skill sets are complimentary. In this analogy, your position is that flying a twin engine plane is in some way preparing you to pilot an F18. Further, the self defense application in this analogy would be someone advertising F18 lessons, but offering twin engine plane lessons, all the while muddying the waters with allusions to F18 skill as some kind of attainable goal, should the person just put in the time and effort to get there. When in fact, no one in that school will ever learn to fly a jet. Ever. And they may not even be able to fly a twin engine plane, because you never actually get within a mile of a runway.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Covering all bases, some do learn it by themselves. Or in a uncommon model, ie learning it themselves as opposed to family teach them. And i dont belive i was, we can dispute the diffrent skills and how easy/hard they are to pick up and the diffrences in people picking it up ad infitium. (and i do dispute a lot of them to be honest)



Oh for driving, plenty of people havent had formal instruction in how to do it, you dont need a licence in plenty of places for private property and then a licence isnt nessisarily anything more than a formality. (if its even enforced in the area you drive in) that indeed has the spectrum of, they crashed enough times to figure it out by themselves, their parents taught them in a formal manner, they did a informal manner etc. Lots of variables for learning in reality, and then this isnt covering the people who move and do in deed learn by trial and error and if they love up will die, seen some of them for the reality shows for remote areas.

Kind of mixed the points up in here.

Addendum: I listed a spectrum and the spectrum of "they pick it up somewhere" is apt, no one persons expreince in life is 1:1 to someone elses.

A couple of thoughts that sort of summarize what I'm thinking:

1) "Formal" doesn't have to mean a paid professional. My dad took me to a parking lot and taught me the first bit of driving. Then took me out on the road and kept teaching me. It was time specifically spent being taught those skills by an experienced driver. For these purposes, I'd consider that "formal" training.

2) Yes, you could find exceptions. But basing your plans around exceptions is one area of confirmation bias I was warning about. There's a famous golfer (from back in the 30's, I think) who is thought to have put his clubs away at the end of the competition season, and take them back out when it started back. That has happened, but probably isn't a good basis for determining how to get really good at golf, as most really good golfers practice quite a bit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That doesn't create nuance. Train and then test that training to see if it is working.

Not train because it works.

If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.

Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing.

And the nuance is the difference between doing the pieces and doing the whole.

And the extra element you need then is someone with experience of how the pieces are put together.

So for a MMA fight. We train the pieces much more than we train the whole. And we create this picture that is a MMA fight.

But we need to reference people who have created this picture. (Someone who competes) or we could wind up creating a different picture.

MMA is easy to do this because we can see bullcrap pretty easily. Self defense is a world of bullcrap and is much harder.

I think you and I might have entirely different ideas what "nuance" means.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.

Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.

But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.

Yeah, not really sure what that has to do with the idea that skills can be applied at various levels.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In this analogy, your position is that flying a twin engine plane is in some way preparing you to pilot an F18.

Actually, no, it's not.

 

[Steve]

Actually, no, it's not.

Yeah. It really is. You just don't want to see it.

 

[Gweilo]

If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.

Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing.

Perhaps you forgot the word ADAPT, also the part about sparring/training with different people, bigger, stronger, faster, smaller, slower, weaker. With the first 3, learn to adapt, learn to use your skill against difficult opponents, the 2nd 3, play, experiment, adapt, learn to conserve energy, try new things, a different approach/angle, things to you can then test against the more difficult opponents.
Imo, I agree in part, for example, there are some arts, that teach x amount of grades in technique, and x amount of routine movement, which becomes predeictable, very little or no sparring, or a tippy tappy point scoring competition once in a blue moon, and always train with the same person, here you have a very valid point. We used to call that one dimensional, they had a lot of skill in a confined area, no nuance as you put it, a difference or graduation of difference, like a piece of music, I have heard this thrase many times over the years, nuance, the problem is, like music, nuance needs to work off a beat,mor rythme if you like. Stopping the learning process, no longer adapting, thinking you have the magic formula, this is the problem, your nuances are different to mine, mine are different to JP's, its just you beleive yours is better. There are things to be learnt from Mma, and its data from matches and performance based training, but its just another nuance, adapt and use whats useful, then move on. Nuance.

 

[drop bear]

Perhaps you forgot the word ADAPT, also the part about sparring/training with different people, bigger, stronger, faster, smaller, slower, weaker. With the first 3, learn to adapt, learn to use your skill against difficult opponents, the 2nd 3, play, experiment, adapt, learn to conserve energy, try new things, a different approach/angle, things to you can then test against the more difficult opponents.
Imo, I agree in part, for example, there are some arts, that teach x amount of grades in technique, and x amount of routine movement, which becomes predeictable, very little or no sparring, or a tippy tappy point scoring competition once in a blue moon, and always train with the same person, here you have a very valid point. We used to call that one dimensional, they had a lot of skill in a confined area, no nuance as you put it, a difference or graduation of difference, like a piece of music, I have heard this thrase many times over the years, nuance, the problem is, like music, nuance needs to work off a beat,mor rythme if you like. Stopping the learning process, no longer adapting, thinking you have the magic formula, this is the problem, your nuances are different to mine, mine are different to JP's, its just you beleive yours is better. There are things to be learnt from Mma, and its data from matches and performance based training, but its just another nuance, adapt and use whats useful, then move on. Nuance.

I think people are using nuance like I would use excuse machine.

So if we look at SCARS guy and his basic inability to do martial arts. And then listen to his line about how he doesn't roll around with people he just kills them with throat pressure so therefore every dumb thing he is doing is actually amazing.

That isn't nuance. That is a line of horse hooey designed to disguise incompetence.

With nuance you should still be able to do the things you say you can do.

 

[drop bear]

I think you and I might have entirely different ideas what "nuance" means.

I assume you think you just write nuance and that therefore makes you correct.

Which is exactly what nuance in quotation marks mean.

I am using it non sarcastically.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.

I was thinking along the lines of Steve here. But are you saying that if I can fly a crap easy to fly plane but not a super hard one I can still fly a plane?

And so therefore if I do a crap easy to progress self defense and not a super hard one. I am still doing self defense?

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, not really sure what that has to do with the idea that skills can be applied at various levels.

I thought we were still on testing pieces to make a whole.

 

[Gweilo]

So if we look at SCARS

There is nothing new, or outstanding about this video, this type of approach is in many arts, again adapting, you seem to think you have stumbled onto a magic formula, thatsvthe horse dooey.