I find it amazing, and really troubling, how much road rage goes on today. Do you see it, too?
To you guys and gals from places other than the U.S. - do you see or hear road rage incidents much? More than years ago?
Evidence based training vs faith based training.
- Thread starter drop bear
- Start date
I find it amazing, and really troubling, how much road rage goes on today. Do you see it, too?
To you guys and gals from places other than the U.S. - do you see or hear road rage incidents much? More than years ago?
Agreed--extremely troubling. If I'm in a car, avoiding a fight (the most important part of self defense, IMO) is one of the easiest things in the world. The few instances that I've seen have involved 1) Bruised egos (the most common, by far), 2) People attacking motorcyclists at stoplights, 3) People being followed until they stop in a parking lot. I don't see very many incidents, but more now that I live in a larger city.
We recently had an incident here where a guy got out of his car with a baseball bat and approached another vehicle. The other guy got out and pulled a long wooden pole from his cab. They wailed on each other a little, but both walked away.
Austin Road Rage Fight Caught on Camera
You just pretend it's not there, try again.
Oh let me assure you that those "life challenges" are overcome. Very arrogant and misguided statement.
Folks it is all faith based until you actually have to use it. After that point, no matter the outcome, it is fact based ( at least for you).
I see your point and the example I use in classes and seminars, is the following:
1 + 1 is 2. Correct?
Nods, and yeses and other affirmations.
I then ask the simple question they usually asked me. Why?
They mostly look at me blankly. I then tell them, there are three proofs, I know of, one is a dissertation, another is a few pages and the other is graphical and or can be explain in less than a page.
Still blank looks.
I then state, you can accept that 1 + 1 is 2 until you learn enough mathematics to prove it is true, or until you use it enough that it just becomes a habit.
** Yes of course, Mathematics is different than martial arts as there are bad techniques, and that would be like saying 1 + 1 is 3 and accepting that and moving forward **
So, yes testing is good, or working with those who have tested it themselves is also acceptable, in my mind.
Well heck. That might the truest thing I've ever read.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
So true. And not a real issue when it's just you, on an individual level.
The trouble I see is when it's faith based for you, but you put out your shingle and begin teaching it to other people, some of whom put out their own shingle and begin teaching others. It's a quick way to create a lot of presumptions of skill based upon hope and faith.
about what?
About the fact that was a deliberate bait about how people should be big enough about making mistakes. You're answer is quite apt. Thankyou
But isn't the argument about following/training in a faith that may not work? Like, there are certain faiths that can be tested out better than others.
About the fact that was a deliberate bait about how people should be big enough about making mistakes. You're answer is quite apt. Thankyou
what bait? and you're welcome.
Look, just to add. Argumentative posts and replys are okay, just on a friendly level.what bait? and you're welcome.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
what if you're in your car and someone who is all raging out gets out and starts heading your way? Wouldn't that be a self defense situation for you? If you're stopped at a light behind other cars, would you stay in your car? Would you get out?
What if you couldn't see both of his hands?
I don't agree that it's ego defense. It may not be entirely rational, but it's not always voluntary. I've seen otherwise very rational people completely lose their cool on the road.
I also don't agree that it's always or even mostly a mutual, voluntary altercation. I've seen plenty of situations (and been involved with a few myself) where one side is genuinely confused and actively seeking to avoid confrontation.
No, you missed the point about faith.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
That's what you think.
Hey Big Man
I think your point neatly sums up the thread.. I would ask you what you think of the idea that some arts or styles by their very way of doing things lend their selves better to empirically verifying whether 1+1=2 ?? Also, do you think in an MA setting that the 1+1 calculation must then be CONTINUALLY verified as true rather than verified once then taken as fact thereon, I am right about that yes??Likewise some styles or training setups are designed in such a way that a student -specially a new student- have no good route to doubt or disprove or even naysay that what their instructor told them that 1+1=3 because it just is and always has been that way from the inception of the art by awesome authorities who are badass in that style and every body say so.. would you agree??
My point below the talk really is how do you suggest the student, either new or long inculcated, break this indoctrination and find out the truth of their art or style for their selves -like the proof of the pudding- if they have never been given any reason even to QUESTION the false doctrine let alone test it out?? Thank you, Jx
I was just kidding.
