If they worked in that situation, they aren't wrong. On the other hand, if they just barely didn't make things worse, they might be wrong...in that situation. That shouldn't be a matter of style, but a matter of objective analysis of the situation. Given that most techniques look like crap in real use, it would be difficult to term anything "wrong" unless it's nearly always going to make things more dangerous (like telling a yelling person to "calm down").
Not necessarily. Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation. Things can be very misleading if you're lookojg for support for a predetermined position.
Nothing in my comment in any way spoke to correlation of any sort.
It is actually both. If the person has been taught ineffective techniques, and has learned them very well (so that they become habitual), their intent won't matter as much as if they have learned reasonably effective technique. On the other hand, if two people learn reasonably effective techniques, and one is more committed (both to the training, and to their defense), that person will be far more effective in the application of the techniques.
You said if it worked its not wrong. If it worked it may be wrong or not wrong or completely irrelevant.
aren't you trying to make a point of your own by asking your question?
Indeed. With style.
Exactly. Correlation is a statistical term. I was speaking about individual incidents.
It's a polite way of saying that your referenced anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdotal and trying to expand it to an entire group is scientifically unsound.
Except that I didn't expand it to an entire group. I said if an action or choice worked in that moment then it was effective in that moment. It might be again later - probably would be, in a very similar situation. That makes no statement about the art's effectiveness. Perhaps I wasn't clear in that distinction - I'm actually too lazy to go back and re-read my own statement at the moment, so there may be a point there.
