Can You Be An Expert?

[Buka]

For what it's worth, the tacit knowledge is the biggest piece of this puzzle. It's everything that you learn by screwing things up and fixing them yourself. It's the lessons learned, the rules of thumb, the "that's what the book says, but this way works better."

I don't think there's an expert in the world, in any field, that would argue that.

 

[Dirty Dog]

For what it's worth, the tacit knowledge is the biggest piece of this puzzle. It's everything that you learn by screwing things up and fixing them yourself. It's the lessons learned, the rules of thumb, the "that's what the book says, but this way works better."

Then the book is screwed up and needs to be corrected.

 

[Buka]

Then the book is screwed up and needs to be corrected.

I think it's in the "Man plans, God laughs" line of thinking.

I'm sure there's many that didn't "go by the book" and regretted it, lost their jobs, or died. (know some)

I'm just as sure there's many (especially experts - oh, there's that word again!) that didn't "go by the book" in some unusual circumstances and survived, also saved the day, and saved lives...including their own. (know some)

D Dog, from reading all you've contributed over the years, I know that you know how to adapt and think on the fly, especially under stress in hairy situations. My guess is you've been outside the box and nailed it. And I'll bet you didn't even think about it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

D Dog, from reading all you've contributed over the years, I know that you know how to adapt and think on the fly, especially under stress in hairy situations. My guess is you've been outside the box and nailed it. And I'll bet you didn't even think about it.

Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.

 

[Buka]

Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.

I hear you, brother. Ain't that the truth. Probably should be a constant.

 

[drop bear]

Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.

It depends. What may work for you may not work for me.

rule of thirds

 

[drop bear]

Not the photography rule. The schizophrenia treatment rule.

Schizophrenia Treatment Without Antipsychotic Drugs - Mombu the Medicine Forum

 

[Steve]

Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.

Do you think in any field, the book is more than an estimate? When you start getting into skill sets and broader categories of expertise, I don't think so. Even academics disagree fundamentally on issues. In any complex skill set there is plenty of room for interpretation and decision making. The quality of your interpretations and the wisdom of the decisions you make are a function of your training coupled with your experience. Particularly in a crisis of any kind.

Or more to the issue, do you think that "the book" can entirely replace hands on experience? I don't. I believe that "the book" (i.e. training) does two things. First, it prepares you for the hands on experience... gets you ready to do the thing. And second, in some cases, training can occur after a period of time to further inform your experiences. I don't think "the book" can ever replace experience.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Let me pose this question:

If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?

 

[Steve]

Let me pose this question:

If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?

Because we're specifically discussing a physical activity (self defense), can we agree that you are not referring to "academic" expertise? We're talking about physically doing the thing. Right?

With that, I think your premise is flawed. A person cannot possibly teach all he knows. There is so much we learn by doing that cannot be quantified. I mentioned "tacit" knowledge before, and that is precisely the concern. I think if you take a few minutes to read the link (or do your own research) on tacit knowledge, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

A person with substantial experience might certainly train a person to a level of competent novice. A person with substantial experience might also be able to create a system that can be taught by others, but I would argue that any competent instructor should independently cultivate their own expertise through experience.

 

[Buka]

Let me pose this question:

If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?

No.

 

[drop bear]

Let me pose this question:

If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?

I would judge it by this method.

Steps of the Scientific Method

So mabye. If you can show where the experiments have been done you could show a version of academic expertise.

But in general if you have missed those steps then not really.

 

[Aiki Lee]

With that, I think your premise is flawed. A person cannot possibly teach all he knows. There is so much we learn by doing that cannot be quantified. I mentioned "tacit" knowledge before, and that is precisely the concern. I think if you take a few minutes to read the link (or do your own research) on tacit knowledge, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

A person with substantial experience might certainly train a person to a level of competent novice. A person with substantial experience might also be able to create a system that can be taught by others, but I would argue that any competent instructor should independently cultivate their own expertise through experience.

From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.

Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?

No.

And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.

I would judge it by this method.

Steps of the Scientific Method

So mabye. If you can show where the experiments have been done you could show a version of academic expertise.

But in general if you have missed those steps then not really.

Can conditions ever be controlled enough to really do the scientific method justice for self-defense or martial arts? I would say a firm understanding of basic physics and human behavior would be more reliable in determining if something would work or not. The scientific method as it is meant to be used would be ideal, but I believe impossible to truly implement without serious flaws.

 

[drop bear]

From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.

Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?



And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.



Can conditions ever be controlled enough to really do the scientific method justice for self-defense or martial arts? I would say a firm understanding of basic physics and human behavior would be more reliable in determining if something would work or not. The scientific method as it is meant to be used would be ideal, but I believe impossible to truly implement without serious flaws.

i have a cage pads,gloves and a bunch of guys willing to bash me. It can test a fair bit of that basic physics.

Otherwise you are playing Chinese whispers a bit. And relying on what feels intuitive.

And that is not expertise.

 

[Steve]

From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.

Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?

the thing about tacit knowledge is that it cannot be taught. That's the entire point. There are a gazillion (roughly) things one learns through experience that are taken for granted... Things you don't even know that you know.

Training in bjj might make you capable of defending yourself, but a bjj black belt would not make you an expert in anything other than bjj. You're right that the student is gaining experience, but the experience is in the system of training. The student is becoming, if anything, an expert student in that system. A black belt , or an instructor badge or whatever, is recognition of expertise in the system.

Someone earlier said that "self defense" was a term used to get people through the door. I agree. There are people on this forum and throughout the martial arts world making a living teaching self defense, despite having little to no experience on the subject. Would certainly affect their bottom line if their students understood this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Aiki Lee]

i have a cage pads,gloves and a bunch of guys willing to bash me. It can test a fair bit of that basic physics.

Otherwise you are playing Chinese whispers a bit. And relying on what feels intuitive.

And that is not expertise.

I agree with that. Testing under pressure is required to keep training honest and on the right track.

the thing about tacit knowledge is that it cannot be taught. That's the entire point. There are a gazillion (roughly) things one learns through experience that are taken for granted... Things you don't even know that you know.

Training in bjj might make you capable of defending yourself, but a bjj black belt would not make you an expert in anything other than bjj. You're right that the student is gaining experience, but the experience is in the system of training. The student is becoming, if anything, an expert student in that system. A black belt , or an instructor badge or whatever, is recognition of expertise in the system.

Someone earlier said that "self defense" was a term used to get people through the door. I agree. There are people on this forum and throughout the martial arts world making a living teaching self defense, despite having little to no experience on the subject. Would certainly affect their bottom line if their students understood this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I agree with this statement.

 

[Buka]

And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.

No worries about saying I'm wrong, brother, I'm married. I'm always wrong.

Do you drive a car? Driving needs to be taught - then constantly repeated. Sure, anyone can watch someone else do it and mimic the basics, or read about it or watch a video and figure out how to get a car going in the direction you want. But real driving is different, especially when it involves many other cars, all of which are moving at sixty miles an hour, many of which are driven by idiots.

Let's say a person has been driving for a year, and is pretty good at it (for a rookie), but has been doing it only in southern California or Florida. Send them north, put them in snow. Especially, different kinds of snow. Suddenly, it's like they've never driven before, especially if you put them in a different car. Besides not being familiar with how your car behaves on crazy, slippery surfaces, you'll have no frame of reference to recognize potential mistakes that OTHER drivers are making, all of which are going to impact you. These things take hands-on experience to learn.

Let's up the ante a bit. You've been driving for five years, in all kinds of weather and gotten pretty good for the feel of your car, maybe even several different cars that you've driven. It's all good because driving is driving.
Now - put yourself in a racing car, on a banked track, racing against professionals all of whom cruise at a hundred and fifty miles an hour. You can read about it all you want, someone can teach you about it all you want - it won't matter.

Do you play golf or billiards? Do you play well? How long did that take? There are certain finesses of movement that cannot be taught in any other manner other than experiencing them yourself over a considerable amount of time.

Do you roll? (free grappling) Do you contact spar? Especially with people better than you? And with people of varying weights and strength? No matter how much me or anyone else coaches you in the best way - it doesn't matter, you have to do it a LOT before you have a clue as to which way is up. And I mean a real lot.

Can you juggle? How was that at the beginning? Do you shoot? Archery? Throw any projectiles? (pitching, bowling, football, basketball etc) Coaching, technique and study are all well and good, but you have to put in the years of actually doing it, and doing it properly. At least to do it on a high level.

Remember the first time you were intimate with another? (I think we can pretty much leave that one right there.)

 

[Tgace]

No worries about saying I'm wrong, brother, I'm married. I'm always wrong.

Do you drive a car? Driving needs to be taught - then constantly repeated. Sure, anyone can watch someone else do it and mimic the basics, or read about it or watch a video and figure out how to get a car going in the direction you want. But real driving is different, especially when it involves many other cars, all of which are moving at sixty miles an hour, many of which are driven by idiots.

Let's say a person has been driving for a year, and is pretty good at it (for a rookie), but has been doing it only in southern California or Florida. Send them north, put them in snow. Especially, different kinds of snow. Suddenly, it's like they've never driven before, especially if you put them in a different car. Besides not being familiar with how your car behaves on crazy, slippery surfaces, you'll have no frame of reference to recognize potential mistakes that OTHER drivers are making, all of which are going to impact you. These things take hands-on experience to learn.

Let's up the ante a bit. You've been driving for five years, in all kinds of weather and gotten pretty good for the feel of your car, maybe even several different cars that you've driven. It's all good because driving is driving.
Now - put yourself in a racing car, on a banked track, racing against professionals all of whom cruise at a hundred and fifty miles an hour. You can read about it all you want, someone can teach you about it all you want - it won't matter.

Do you play golf or billiards? Do you play well? How long did that take? There are certain finesses of movement that cannot be taught in any other manner other than experiencing them yourself over a considerable amount of time.

Do you roll? (free grappling) Do you contact spar? Especially with people better than you? And with people of varying weights and strength? No matter how much me or anyone else coaches you in the best way - it doesn't matter, you have to do it a LOT before you have a clue as to which way is up. And I mean a real lot.

Can you juggle? How was that at the beginning? Do you shoot? Archery? Throw any projectiles? (pitching, bowling, football, basketball etc) Coaching, technique and study are all well and good, but you have to put in the years of actually doing it, and doing it properly. At least to do it on a high level.

Remember the first time you were intimate with another? (I think we can pretty much leave that one right there.)

I have made an "experience analogy" to rock climbing in other posts on this subject that is similar:

A while back I was involved in a debate over whether a martial arts instructor with “combat experience” (had been in fights) was superior to an instructor who had not. The debate raged between camps that argued that martial arts had already been “combat tested” through the centuries so it was the arts techniques that mattered, not the fighting experience of the instructor. Others stood on the premise that it was “the dog in the fight” that mattered. They said that the instructors experience gave him more insight in how to transmit the arts fighting skills. I argued that “Real world fighting experience” was a necessity when developing or advancing a new fighting system; as the focus of any system of combat should be “combat effectiveness”. But I added that it wasn’t “necessary” that the person teaching that system had to have used the techniques himself to be a valid instructor.

I made an analogy of the relationship between “combat experience” and martial arts instruction to a sport I used to participate in…rock climbing.

Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. There’s hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you don’t fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and that’s OK, it’s as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the “real thing”. Most walls are 50′-100′.

“Real” rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. I’ve climbed faces as high as 800′-900′ and those are on the small side of average.

The first time I “lead” a climb, it was an eye-opener…. I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT…. I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough, #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldn’t do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I “just did things” without thought, sometimes there were moments of “wow I actually planned to do that and I did”. I did it though and made it to the top.

Did the gym training help? Couldn’t have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did “real” climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified “yes”, yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my “real” (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the “real” climbing “necessary”? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had. If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did “real” climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT…I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the “real” thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.

Now an analogy can’t be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasn't something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of “experience counts” as I can make right now.

Of course the topic here is about YOU needing experience or not in order to accomplish a physical task like climbing or fighting vs. claiming "expertise" to teach a subject, but I thought this would be an interesting point to interject.

 

[tkdwarrior]

With the discussions ongoing regarding effective techniques and such, the term "expert" is being used again. I continue to have concerns regarding the use of the term "expert" to include people who have little to no practical experience using the techniques that they teach.

While I will readily agree that a person can learn practical skills and prepare in classes using a variety of training modalities, including drills, scenarios and such, I really question whether someone can become an "expert" in self defense without extensive experience.

A friend once said "What is an advanced technique? An advanced technique is a perfected basic tecnique."

You "master" a technique until it becomes second nature and hopefully you are able to use it in a high stress situation. That is why you drill it and drill it ad infinitum.

Then you become an expert of the technique.

Now if you define an expert as one who teaches a fighting skill but has never fought...well there might be some truth to that but it does not mean that he has no capabilities.

And for me the greatest skill/expertise is winning a fight without ever fighting......

 

[Buka]

I started training in 1970. We would look at our instructor, and all the other instructors we'd meet at tournaments, seminars and such, as "experts".

But that was 1970. The first Martial Arts school in the United States opened in 1946. If someone was there from the git-go they'd have 24 years experience by 1970.

Today, I must know a hundred guys with over thirty or forty or fifty years experience, you probably do, too. Maybe we know more "experts" than we realize.