Can You Be An Expert?

[MJS]

Even in kata your opponent needs to be real to you in your head. I teach people to move with that invisible enemy and as you strike kill the air around you. Train the way you want to react and you WILL react that way for real..............

I agree. My teacher makes us do the same thing. If we're not putting in 100% when we do the kata, we hear about it.

 

[MJS]

The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot. In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots. There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots. And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.

Once again, let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane. Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane? I would say no. In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.

Would that person be competent as a flight instructor? I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator. I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here. There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple. People learn things in predictable stages:

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application. In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge. How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Great points Steve! This is why I mentioned what I did in my OP. For me personally, if it came down to choosing, I'd rather have someone with the actual hands on training, vs. someone who spent the majority of time simulating. As for the pilots, I tend to agree also, and had Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger, not been flying that plane that day, my guess is it would have been a recovery effort rather than a rescue effort. So, going on this:

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator. I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here. There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple. People learn things in predictable stages:

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application. In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge. How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.

What would you suggest to get people to do that?

 

[Steve]

Great points Steve! This is why I mentioned what I did in my OP. For me personally, if it came down to choosing, I'd rather have someone with the actual hands on training, vs. someone who spent the majority of time simulating. As for the pilots, I tend to agree also, and had Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger, not been flying that plane that day, my guess is it would have been a recovery effort rather than a rescue effort. So, going on this:



What would you suggest to get people to do that?

Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.

Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.

Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

So In your opinion nobody can be a self defense expert since nobody has 100s of real world self defense experiences?
I think self defense may be too broad a term. There are knife experts that would suck with a gun gun experts that would get hurt going hands on, dept of corrections self defense is different then police which is different then woman which is different then men. So there may not be a all encompassing self defense expert. Breaking it down a little more specific and yes there are plenty of field experts. That build that knowledge from case study and training. an expert in shark attacks doesn't need to have been bitten by a shark.

I'll use LE as an example. Let's say you're in the police academy. It's time to head to the range and do some shooting. Your instructor for the lesson has extensively researched guns, dating back to the very first gun, all the way to present day. He knows about the range of the gun, the stopping power, you name it, he knows it. But he states that during his research, he's never once, actually fired a gun.

You're the new recruit. Would you want to be instructed by this guy?

On the flip side, if the instructor was former military, would you want to be taught by him? And I know that the skill set that the average officer gets, compared to what a Marine sniper would get, will be different, and probably wouldn't apply to the average LEO, but the fact remains, you'd still be getting trained by someone who's fired a wide array of weapons.

 

[MJS]

Yes. And I put a link to it in the sport vs tma thread. I don't honestly think I can say it much differently than I did in that thread.... I haven't seen anything that has changed my mind. Human beings all accumulate experience in the same way. There are no short cuts to expertise. You have to log the hours.

Ahh...my bad. I seem to recall that other thread, but forgot about it at the time. Anyways, I agree, in that if you truly want to have the expertise, you need to get the hands on training.

 

[MJS]

Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?

I'd say it'd depend on your goal. The guy who is looking for something to do after work, maybe meet some new people, get in better shape, probably isn't going to have the same goals as someone who is looking to defend themselves in a SD situation, regardless of how rare or not, that may happen. Given that I do my very best to avoid trouble, the fact that my neighborhood is pretty crime free, my odds of having to defend myself, are much lower on the scale. This doesn't mean that I don't want to have the tools, should I need them. So for me, that's just what I'm looking to defend against..the punk who might try to mug me when I'm walking to my car in the parking garage of the mall. I've got no desire to be the next fighter on TUF.

Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
:asian:

On the flip side, you could teach him a skill set for outside of the ring, should it be something that he doesn't have or wants to expand upon.

 

[Steve]

As I said in:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108916

Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific. In other words, he's not teaching "self defense". He's teaching his system. And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does. A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer? Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject. Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people. They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people. And so on. This is how martial arts work. A guy develops his system. He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.

The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system. The expertise being gained isn't "self defense." It's the system. And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.

Looking once again at the pilot, if Capt. Sullenberger trained a pilot who never flew a plane (simulators only), that student is still benefiting from his instructor's expertise. But, there are a million little things that Sulley knows that a trainee won't. Things that you only get by doing. And, so when that student becomes an instructor, teaching Sulley's method for flying a plane (without ever actually flying a plane), he will not pass those things on. And his students become instructors... and pretty soon, we have thousands of schools popping up all over the world teaching people to fly planes without actually flying planes. Are any of these people expert pilots? I'd argue that they are not. Rather, they are experts in Sulley's flightless pilot training system.

 

[Steve]

I'll use LE as an example. Let's say you're in the police academy. It's time to head to the range and do some shooting. Your instructor for the lesson has extensively researched guns, dating back to the very first gun, all the way to present day. He knows about the range of the gun, the stopping power, you name it, he knows it. But he states that during his research, he's never once, actually fired a gun.

You're the new recruit. Would you want to be instructed by this guy?

On the flip side, if the instructor was former military, would you want to be taught by him? And I know that the skill set that the average officer gets, compared to what a Marine sniper would get, will be different, and probably wouldn't apply to the average LEO, but the fact remains, you'd still be getting trained by someone who's fired a wide array of weapons.

In the other thread, Tgace posted a link to an article where a guy discusses the difference between some firearms. I might be remembering it wrong, but the gist of it as I recall was that he was training SWAT guys, and in the course of the training, some would have really expensive, shiny, firearms that were showy, but not reliable. He then went on about which firearms he preferred and why. The choice of the showy, expensive firearms on the part of the trainees had everything to do with their lack of experience. And his choices, and the depth of his rationale behind his choices, had everything to do with the depth of his experience. You can't teach experience. And you can't be an expert without it.

As ballen and others are, I think, beginning to understand, it's about being aware of exactly what one's areas of expertise really are.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think I have to agree with the post that said we need to define expert, and specifically in martial arts. I think we are giving examples and arguments that don't necessarily apply to MA.

Would a 1st Dan be considered an expert? Taught properly he sure is going to know a lot to earn his black belt. He sure should know a lot of things that the non-MA educated person will never know. But within the MA community, he is probably not yet an expert. Since there are many styles of MA, could we at least suggest a level at which one becomes an expert? Is it at 2nd Dan, 3rd, or perhaps 4th where most can have their own school (at least in Korea) and be called Master? How about being a Grand Master? Must one be there before being an expert?

What do others of you think? Are we wasting time by not narrowly defining our discussion to MA? Can we agree at what level a person becomes an expert?

 

[Steve]

Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?

Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
:asian:

Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread. Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful. BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful. MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.

But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either. In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method. Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills. But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense. Might be, but not necessarily.

Why is this? I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.

 

[Steve]

History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....

Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

It would be hard. I'm not suggesting that schools do this. There are two ways to approach this. First, and probably the easiest, is for a school to simply be more specific and up front about what they're teaching and what they're not teaching. If an instructor has no practical experience, maybe touting him as an expert is wrong.

Second is to make a show of giving students large sums of cash in high crime neighborhood and then see if they can walk out without being killed.

 

[Steve]

I think I have to agree with the post that said we need to define expert, and specifically in martial arts. I think we are giving examples and arguments that don't necessarily apply to MA.

Would a 1st Dan be considered an expert? Taught properly he sure is going to know a lot to earn his black belt. He sure should know a lot of things that the non-MA educated person will never know. But within the MA community, he is probably not yet an expert. Since there are many styles of MA, could we at least suggest a level at which one becomes an expert? Is it at 2nd Dan, 3rd, or perhaps 4th where most can have their own school (at least in Korea) and be called Master? How about being a Grand Master? Must one be there before being an expert?

What do others of you think? Are we wasting time by not narrowly defining our discussion to MA? Can we agree at what level a person becomes an expert?

I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system. Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art. The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ. You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo. Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else. It seems obvious, I know.

Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.

 

[Steve]

Flip side I've seen vet cops do some really stupid stuff due to complacency. Time on and real world experience alone don't make you an expert

I would agree with this. While all experts will have practical experience, not everyone with practical experience will be an expert.

The first step to expertise is competence. While anyone can make a mistake, if the mistakes are due to a lack of competence (skills gaps, chronic apathy/complacence or whatever), then a person cannot be an expert, by definition.

 

[oftheherd1]

I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system. Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art. The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ. You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo. Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else. It seems obvious, I know.

Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.

Sounds like a good start: you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in. Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?

 

[Steve]

Sounds like a good start: you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in. Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?

I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect system.

Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense? The answer is it's both good and bad. There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense. Same for MMA. And, here's the key. It's the same for all arts.

Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal. Quality training can make a big difference. I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective. I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence. In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training. And for most people, this is plenty.

Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him. How is ballen able to say this? Because ballen uses the system in real life. He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation. While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training. And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.

 

[DennisBreene]

I don't think that identifying and creating a curriculum for teaching effective self defense is necessarily impossible or purely academic. If you look at the common factors in some of the analogies they've used; aviation, medicine, combat. One of the effective methods of analysis that is used in all of these is some sort of retrospective analysis. A plane crashes and there is an investigation. Something goes wrong in surgery and there is a morbidity and mortality conference. Military engagements have after action reports. In the first two examples (I am uncertain about the third), free and open communication is maximized by placing protections on the discussions and fact finding from civil litigation. Events are then analyzed in detail. Experts in various aspects of the process evaluate such factors as mechanical failure, pilot/surgeon error, and much else and really pick apart the facts of the event to determine what happened, what went wrong, what was done to manage the situation, what wasn't done and what could have been done. And ultimately; if the accepted correct actions had been taken, would the outcome have been changed. The process yields results in these fields in a number of ways. It identifies fundamental flaws in design or concept. It identifies errors made by humans in performing required tasks. It seeks to identify ways of modifying design and human conduct so that mishaps and misadventures can be prevented or if not preventable, the damage can be minimized.


In theory at least, those same principles could be applied to case studies of actual self defense occurrences to identify multiple factors relevant to what occurred and what can be learned from the analysis that would be of benefit in handling such occurrences most effectively. Was the persons ability to avoid a conflict inadequate or ineffective. If so; what could be changed in that person's behavior to avoid the the conflict. The details of the encounter can be analyzed to determine if a technique was effective or ineffective and recommendations could be made as to how the event could have been managed better.
Repeated analysis of such occurences could yield insight into unifying themes as to what is effective and be used to refine or revamp instruction of techniques. It would be a daunting task, but not impossible. It would require some level of consensus as to what individuals were qualified to do such investigations and reports. And it would require commitment among practitioners to incorporate recommended changes into their curriculum. Over time, the constant reassessment could lead to more effective principles based on real world experience. It may sound outlandish, but that process is done constantly in the fields I have mentioned and has resulted in remarkable advancement in quality. IMHO it is possible. The question is; is there enough need for such an effort and is there the collective will to change how very traditional techniques are approached in order to systematically improve self defense technique?

 

[EddieCyrax]

Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.

Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.

Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I do not disagree with the premise of your opinions, but have follow up questions. Given the vast volume of techniques tought in most all MAs, how many real life conflicts must a person be in to be an "expert"? How many techniques must they have demonstrated? Are you suggesting that only individuals in LE, military, bouncer, sport fighter(boxing/mma/etc) or street proven can ever obtain the level of expert? If so, how is this determined/judged? What becomes the standard to which one has to obtain?

The airline industry is a bit different here. One can obtain enough seat time under supervision to get their licience. How does a MA practicioner who trains (in all the right ways) in the hopes of never utilizing their training get this experience?

At this point, this seems extremely subjective. I am not sure I would label all LEs or the ex-military as experts in MA just because they did their time and now currently practice MA. I have witnessed cases where this logic definately does not hold.

All this said, I have enjoyed reading this debate.....interesting food for thought....

 

[Steve]

I do not disagree with the premise of your opinions, but have follow up questions. Given the vast volume of techniques tought in most all MAs, how many real life conflicts must a person be in to be an "expert"? How many techniques must they have demonstrated? Are you suggesting that only individuals in LE, military, bouncer, sport fighter(boxing/mma/etc) or street proven can ever obtain the level of expert? If so, how is this determined/judged? What becomes the standard to which one has to obtain?

My opinion is that the term "self defense' is so abstract as to be worthless. A LEO might have a lot of valuable and useful information to share based upon his/her experience and training. While there may be some overlap, a bouncer would have slightly different (but perhaps equally valuable and useful) information to share. A sport fighter would have a different piece of the puzzle.

Which is best for self defense? Well, that depends as much on the student as the system.

The airline industry is a bit different here. One can obtain enough seat time under supervision to get their licience. How does a MA practicioner who trains (in all the right ways) in the hopes of never utilizing their training get this experience?

Remember, I'm not saying you can't get to the point where you could likely use your skills when necessary. Excellent training will get you very, very close to competent. What I'm saying is that you can't progress beyond that point without applying the skills in the wild (so to speak).

At this point, this seems extremely subjective. I am not sure I would label all LEs or the ex-military as experts in MA just because they did their time and now currently practice MA. I have witnessed cases where this logic definately does not hold.

Of course not. I agree completely. I have said repeatedly that while I believe all experts have experience, not everyone with experience is an expert.

The tricky part sometimes is accurately identifying the area of expertise. Dennisbreene brought up the point that there are experts and then there are EXPERTS among the experts. Expertise IS subjective and represents a range of experience, skill and ability.

All this said, I have enjoyed reading this debate.....interesting food for thought....

 

[Steve]

I don't think that identifying and creating a curriculum for teaching effective self defense is necessarily impossible or purely academic. If you look at the common factors in some of the analogies they've used; aviation, medicine, combat. One of the effective methods of analysis that is used in all of these is some sort of retrospective analysis. A plane crashes and there is an investigation. Something goes wrong in surgery and there is a morbidity and mortality conference. Military engagements have after action reports. In the first two examples (I am uncertain about the third), free and open communication is maximized by placing protections on the discussions and fact finding from civil litigation. Events are then analyzed in detail. Experts in various aspects of the process evaluate such factors as mechanical failure, pilot/surgeon error, and much else and really pick apart the facts of the event to determine what happened, what went wrong, what was done to manage the situation, what wasn't done and what could have been done. And ultimately; if the accepted correct actions had been taken, would the outcome have been changed. The process yields results in these fields in a number of ways. It identifies fundamental flaws in design or concept. It identifies errors made by humans in performing required tasks. It seeks to identify ways of modifying design and human conduct so that mishaps and misadventures can be prevented or if not preventable, the damage can be minimized.


In theory at least, those same principles could be applied to case studies of actual self defense occurrences to identify multiple factors relevant to what occurred and what can be learned from the analysis that would be of benefit in handling such occurrences most effectively. Was the persons ability to avoid a conflict inadequate or ineffective. If so; what could be changed in that person's behavior to avoid the the conflict. The details of the encounter can be analyzed to determine if a technique was effective or ineffective and recommendations could be made as to how the event could have been managed better.
Repeated analysis of such occurences could yield insight into unifying themes as to what is effective and be used to refine or revamp instruction of techniques. It would be a daunting task, but not impossible. It would require some level of consensus as to what individuals were qualified to do such investigations and reports. And it would require commitment among practitioners to incorporate recommended changes into their curriculum. Over time, the constant reassessment could lead to more effective principles based on real world experience. It may sound outlandish, but that process is done constantly in the fields I have mentioned and has resulted in remarkable advancement in quality. IMHO it is possible. The question is; is there enough need for such an effort and is there the collective will to change how very traditional techniques are approached in order to systematically improve self defense technique?

I think that it's entirely possible to create an effective curriculum. Honestly, the sticking point for me isn't quality of training. The part I think is a little alarming is the idea that people mistake the training for the skill. Can a solid curriculum teach practical skills to a lay person? Sure. Of course. A person might, through years of diligent training, get to the point where he or she is an expert in that system.

Will that person be able to apply those skills outside of training? We can say maybe. We might even be able to say probably. but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.

 

[EddieCyrax]

but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.

This is where I stuggle. Define "Actually Done".

Perhaps it is better to say that there is no such thing as an expert. Perhaps this term is used for system/company marketing or to reflect one's ego.

For example. Let's say a 1st Dan (you choose the MA) has trained for 7 years, and has proven his skills as a fighter in the ring and on the job as a LEO. Does this make them an expert in his MA?

hmmmm....not sure I know the answer based on the discussion.