QuantumKitty
Orange Belt
There's a classic online martial arts interaction I'm sure we've all seen a hundred times, and I want to illustrate a side of it that's rarely discussed.
Person A makes a criticism (maybe about a style or particular school).
Person B says Person A does not know what they're talking about and to go out and try it.
That is usually the exchange.
However, here's the thing...
Person A actually goes out and try it, effortlessly "beat" (however you want to define that) someone with name recognition or accomplishments at their own game, soundly and repeatedly.
Now what?
Option 1: They share the story online. They post about their experience (or maybe even footage) to validate their original point. The likely outcome? They're labeled an arrogant, disrespectful prick. They could damage the reputation of a school or an individual who might otherwise be a perfectly decent person. The focus shifts from the initial criticism to their "bad attitude."
Option 2: They keep the story private. They say nothing. The result? The original online conversation remains unchanged. No one is persuaded, and the "go and try it" challenge is still seen as the ultimate trump card. It's as if nothing ever happened.
I think this highlights a powerful bias in how people love the story of the arrogant critic who gets humbled and learns a valuable lesson. It's a satisfying narrative.
But the reverse story, the critic who humbles someone else and validates their own beliefs is an uncomfortable one. When that happens, people often shift the goalposts:
The most interesting part to me is what the "winner" actually learns. Their beliefs were simply confirmed. The person who was defeated is the one who might have learned something new. But for the person who issued the original criticism, what was the takeaway? They're left in a social bind where telling the truth makes them the bad guy, and staying silent feels like a concession.
Person A makes a criticism (maybe about a style or particular school).
Person B says Person A does not know what they're talking about and to go out and try it.
That is usually the exchange.
However, here's the thing...
Person A actually goes out and try it, effortlessly "beat" (however you want to define that) someone with name recognition or accomplishments at their own game, soundly and repeatedly.
Now what?
Option 1: They share the story online. They post about their experience (or maybe even footage) to validate their original point. The likely outcome? They're labeled an arrogant, disrespectful prick. They could damage the reputation of a school or an individual who might otherwise be a perfectly decent person. The focus shifts from the initial criticism to their "bad attitude."
Option 2: They keep the story private. They say nothing. The result? The original online conversation remains unchanged. No one is persuaded, and the "go and try it" challenge is still seen as the ultimate trump card. It's as if nothing ever happened.
I think this highlights a powerful bias in how people love the story of the arrogant critic who gets humbled and learns a valuable lesson. It's a satisfying narrative.
But the reverse story, the critic who humbles someone else and validates their own beliefs is an uncomfortable one. When that happens, people often shift the goalposts:
- "Well, that instructor was never that good anyway."
- "One person doesn't represent the entire system." (Which is a fair point, but often used to dismiss the result entirely).
- "Winning doesn't prove your criticism was right."
The most interesting part to me is what the "winner" actually learns. Their beliefs were simply confirmed. The person who was defeated is the one who might have learned something new. But for the person who issued the original criticism, what was the takeaway? They're left in a social bind where telling the truth makes them the bad guy, and staying silent feels like a concession.
