# why



## marlon (Mar 22, 2009)

The best of my learning in the last few years has come from students asking, why.  Sure it has been great having my teacher challenge my fitness and coordination and the combinations challenging my abilities, but the deepest and best learning has come from the students and thier "whys"  Of course this in no way sets aside the mind staggering information from Doc and his SL4 perspective.  So, what has anyone esle learned ffrom the student "whys"?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## MJS (Mar 23, 2009)

marlon said:


> The best of my learning in the last few years has come from students asking, why. Sure it has been great having my teacher challenge my fitness and coordination and the combinations challenging my abilities, but the deepest and best learning has come from the students and thier "whys" Of course this in no way sets aside the mind staggering information from Doc and his SL4 perspective. So, what has anyone esle learned ffrom the student "whys"?
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 
I love it when people ask me why, because it keeps me on my toes.   Just when you think that you have all the answers, someone will ask a question that will leave you scratching your head.   Its made me really look at the technique, form, etc. and do my best to figure the answer for them.  Of course, there've been a few times when I couldn't come up with the answer on my own, so I had to seek out someone else, then of course, providing the person with the answer to their question.


----------



## seninoniwashi (Mar 23, 2009)

I love asking my teachers why :ultracool I've had a few instructors who actually get upset when they're asked why, as if their authority on the subject is being challenged. The reality of it is, in my case I really just want to know why. That's how I learn best.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 23, 2009)

"Why" and "What if..." are indeed very important to ask...

I believe that learning the moves are only a fraction of the technique, the rest should be "Why"s and "what if"s...

It seems that the "Technique vs. Strength" thread Here will show the importance of the "Why's" and "What if's"


----------



## Doc (Mar 23, 2009)

The only two questions my students may *not* ask are "Why? and "What if?" They have come to learn the important fundamental question they must always ask that will improve their skills is "How?" The other two questions are slowly answered over time when the answers will ultimately make sense to them.

If more students asked their teachers "How?" instead of "What if or Why?" they would be much better at what they do. Teachers can always find a philosophical reason for "Why's and What ifs," that may or may not prove themselves correct, but "How's" require knowledge and are subject to being tested and disproved if the teacher is incorrect.

The scrutiny of the "How" is a better standard for those learning physical skills. If you cannot "Do," "why or what if" is irrelevant. What is the goal? To know why, or to learn how? Which do you need the most, and no, you can't have it both ways. One will retard the other.

It is the reason you learn "How" first and slowly overtime "Why's" present themselves. Warrior first, than warrior/scholar, than scholar/warrior, and finally scholar. Knowledge does not make you a scholar in the arts. It is the combination of experience coupled with slowly expanding knowledge bolstered by your experience. No wonder graduates think they know everything. After all, they read all the books.

I know, I know. I'm always screwing up the party. Guess that's why I'm not invited much. Reality is a *****!

"Let time be your measurement to skill and knowledge." - Ed Parker
(Notice *skill* comes first)

"Skills first, knowledge and wisdom later." - Dr. Ron Chapél


----------



## Matt (Mar 23, 2009)

Doc said:


> The only two questions my students may *not* ask are "Why? and "What if?" They have come to learn the important fundamental question they must always ask that will improve their skills is "How?" The other two questions are slowly answered over time when the answers will ultimately make sense to them.
> 
> If more students asked their teachers "How?" instead of "What if or Why?" they would be much better at what they do. Teachers can always find a philosophical reason for "Why's and What ifs," that may or may not prove themselves correct, but "How's" require knowledge and are subject to being tested and disproved if the teacher is incorrect.
> 
> ...



I disagree -  as long as the students are asking 'why' from the biomechanical standpoint, I feel it is an important question. By the time they are advanced, however, they should know the biomechanics.


----------



## Doc (Mar 23, 2009)

Matt said:


> I disagree -  as long as the students are asking 'why' from the biomechanical standpoint, I feel it is an important question. By the time they are advanced, however, they should know the biomechanics.



"Why" am I not surprised? 

The complexity of "biomechanical why's" detract from learning the "how." The voluminous nature of the information, in conjunction with the complexity of the answers would preclude getting anything physically done. Most don't understand that because they themselves do not have the knowledge, so they see it as a "simple" answer to a "simple" question. It is not, nor has it ever been except for the proliferated and "dumbed down arts." Kinda like a child asking "why" the universe is so big. A simple answer won't give knowledge, only distract from it.

Where performance is paramount, you focus on achieving performance objectives first. In sports for example, coaches coach function. They don't stand around explaining every little thing, they want you to demonstrate performance. Experience will expose some of the why's, and will tell me when you're ready for a "why" or two. 

The bulk of my students are extremely well educated, including several physicians. Even they don't ask me "why." They are looking for the "how" because they know as educated people the "why" will come as they gain experience. 

Teachers who are always explaining "why's," and exploring myriad "what if" possibilities are intellectualizing a physical activity, and like most information novices within a physical discipline, they are enamored by the sound of their own voice, and it makes them appear "smart." Ed Parker called in "Hypothetical Kenpo."

If you really want to impress students, share with them "how," and watch them appreciate the effectiveness of their own ability now learned, and they won't care so much about "why." That's what happens in my lecture/seminars. They start out with "why" and  when someone really actually for real teaches them something that they can see and feel works right now, they forget "why" and want to do it again because they know they are learning something.

This whole "why" thing is a western perspective, not found in the original teaching of the arts for a reason. No time - if your goal is to learn physically "how." 

But, if you are teaching something non-physical, it's a different story, but I'm not. I believe in saving their butt from injury first, they'll understand why it saved their *** later, or study somewhere else. Isn't that right Bode?

I had a high ranking 2nd generation Parker Lineage Black Belt visit me recently. He said that he needed to have his why's answered or he could not learn. I told him that is what the commercial system has taught you, but it is not true, but I agreed anyway. We spent two hours together. I wanted to show him "how," and every time he would stop me and we would go into "Why." When we were through, he was flabbergasted with information that he never knew existed. When I got ready to leave I asked if he learned a lot. He said "well, yes, sorta." I asked him if he could apply anything I told him. He paused and said, "No, I'm having trouble processing just the why." My point exactly. 

Teachers that don't have much to offer physically beyond perspiration warm-ups and calisthenics, talk a lot. I try to improve my students, and do what is in their best interest, even if they don't like it.

"This is Kenpo Self-Defense gentlemen, not math. Mistakes don't just give you the wrong answer, they hurt." - Dr. Ron Chapél


Take a lap.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 23, 2009)

I really fail to see how can someone adapt himself to a real life situation with constant changing parameters without knowing how the techniques work.

I believe that mechanical reflexes are great, but quite limited to pre-determined parameters.

In real life, assailants won't attack with an overhead knife attack with the arm straightened.

(Here is a funny video with Jim Carey about this)

I believe that in a real life threatening situation, you'll have to think about the actual parameters of the moment.

If you know *how* to do the technique perfectly and your opponent doesn't react like you are used to in the dojo, you're as good as dead.

For instance: your reflexes might be conditioned that your opponent will bend forward if you punch his solar plexus.  You *learned it* that way.  You practiced it a thousand times, but chances are good that a real opponent won't act the same as your friendly practicing partner.

So, that's why I think that "what if's" are most important.

I tend to see Kempo as a tree of possibilities that unravels before you.  Many moves might give many outcomes, it's a fact.  You just have to know how to react in that particular branch of the possibility tree.  And that involves a lot of "what if's", "why's" but also "how's"

A side note for senseis out there:  there is nothing wrong about saying "I'm not quite sure, let's experiment" to your students.  It's not a lack of knowledge, it's only *humility*.


----------



## Doc (Mar 23, 2009)

JesterX said:


> I really fail to see how can someone adapt himself to a real life situation with constant changing parameters without knowing how the techniques work.
> 
> I believe that mechanical reflexes are great, but quite limited to pre-determined parameters.
> 
> ...


You opinion is typical sir of those who reside technically where you are. I have a little bit of experience training people for real world experiences, and retain a good percentage of students who have physical confrontations as a matter of course in their profession, as do I.

I fear, based on your own experience level in your profile, that your thoughts of training are purely hypothetical, with little to no real work experience.

As an adult, if you are, you must find the teaching situation that best fits your needs, and then hope that you are correct. For me, it is not hypothetical. My students (some) go out and come back with a real world experience to every class session for examination and dissection under extreme scrutiny. I hope you don't have to find out whether you're correct or not.

Your best bet is to rely on those that you choose to train you. Unfortunately, in todays market, trainers are in business to give you want you want, not what you need. In the military in basic, they tell you exactly what to do, and how to do it. You do not ask questions. The trainers have real world experience and are doing what they know will save your life. Nobody likes boot camp, until after they are out. Then they all come back and thank their DI's for preparing them for reality, even though they didn't like it.

Only in the business of modern martial arts teaching when you don't know jack, can you go to someone for serious training, and then tell them how you want to be trained.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 24, 2009)

Doc said:


> You opinion is typical sir of those who reside technically where you are. I have a little bit of experience training people for real world experiences, and retain a good percentage of students who have physical confrontations as a matter of course in their profession, as do I.
> 
> I fear, based on your own experience level in your profile, that your thoughts of training are purely hypothetical, with little to no real work experience.
> 
> ...



Maybe that my opinion has something to do with my line of work also.  Investigations, analysis, questioning and understanding how things work is part of my life in general.  Nobody is the same, nobody learns the same way.

That said, I would never be able to learn from a teacher who basically tells me:  "Just do it, don't ask questions", I would never be able to have any faith in him/her.

You're right about the way that modern martial arts are taught.  But it's only normal.  The teacher is also an employee of the student.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 24, 2009)

Please forgive the intrusion of CMA person

What if.. not important

How is certainly important. 

And you can know how but you should also know why


----------



## Danjo (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Maybe that my opinion has something to do with my line of work also. Investigations, analysis, questioning and understanding how things work is part of my life in general. Nobody is the same, nobody learns the same way.
> 
> That said, I would never be able to learn from a teacher who basically tells me: "Just do it, don't ask questions", I would never be able to have any faith in him/her.
> 
> You're right about the way that modern martial arts are taught. But it's only normal. The teacher is also an employee of the student.


 
Hmmmm.... I would disagree. One could construct an argument to say that one's teacher or professor was one's employee, but that would really be stretching the definition IMO. Do you pay them to teach you what they know, or to teach you in a certain way?

When you employ a driving instructor, do you require him to teach you "why" the car turns over when you turn the key? Do you need to know "Why" the wheels on the car turn when you turn the steering wheel? Or do you need to know "How" to do it in such a way as to make you a good driver?

The driving instructor may well know why the engine starts, but it's simply something you have no need to know in order to learn how to drive a car. Plus, it would take you two years  to learn all of the basic auto mechanics needed to completely understand a car's workings (based on the average time it takes to earn a certification at a community college). Do you really want to take that long to learn how to drive a car effectively merely because you can't stand not knowing why everything works first?

Not only are you unlikely to want to take that long to learn to drive, you are even more unlikely to find a driving instructor that would put up with such a need. Who needs the money that badly?


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 24, 2009)

I used to ask "why" all the time. but as I've learned more I realize that Doc is correct and the real question is "how?."  the one other caveat I would add is before you ask, "how" it is important to make sure that the teachers technique works.  You don't want  to learn How from someone who is ineffective no matter how pretty their movement may be. If it is effective, the why's should become more clear after you learn the "hows."  

Now what Doc didn't mention is that he slips in the why's continually in his teaching. unfortunately, i've found that I'm concentrating  so hard on the how that I remember very little of the why during the few classes I've had with him.

Jeff


----------



## JesterX (Mar 24, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Hmmmm.... I would disagree. One could construct an argument to say that one's teacher or professor was one's employee, but that would really be stretching the definition IMO. Do you pay them to teach you what they know, or to teach you in a certain way?
> 
> When you employ a driving instructor, do you require him to teach you "why" the car turns over when you turn the key? Do you need to know "Why" the wheels on the car turn when you turn the steering wheel? Or do you need to know "How" to do it in such a way as to make you a good driver?
> 
> ...


 
You can however ask your driving instructor *why* he suggest you to change lane... or *why* he suggest to look at your mirror before executing a maneuver. Those are important informations.

If the driving teacher failed to answer me to those two questions, (or simply said: don't ask why, just do it), I would for sure change instructor!)

However, if he were a automobile mechanic teacher, asking him *why* the car starts would make sense.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 24, 2009)

Kenpodoc said:


> I used to ask "why" all the time. but as I've learned more I realize that Doc is correct and the real question is "how?." the one other caveat I would add is before you ask, "how" it is important to make sure that the teachers technique works. You don't want to learn How from someone who is ineffective no matter how pretty their movement may be. If it is effective, the why's should become more clear after you learn the "hows."
> 
> Now what Doc didn't mention is that he slips in the why's continually in his teaching. unfortunately, i've found that I'm concentrating so hard on the how that I remember very little of the why during the few classes I've had with him.
> 
> Jeff


 
Can the reason be : because "why" doesn't make sense anymore? Because you already know why because of your experience or you asked the question when you were junior?


----------



## Danjo (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> You can however ask your driving instructor *why* he suggest you to change lane... or *why* he suggest to look at your mirror before executing a maneuver. Those are important informations.
> 
> If the driving teacher failed to answer me to those two questions, (or simply said: don't ask why, just do it), I would for sure change instructor!)
> 
> However, if he were a automobile mechanic teacher, asking him *why* the car starts would make sense.


 
I don't think those questions would come up in your examples. It is axiomatic why you look before changing lanes. If you could not figure that out without asking, then you would have no business driving IMO. It would be like asking a Kenpo instructor why you should block a punch to your face. Also, I don't think you would ask the auto shop teacher why the car started. You know you're going to find that info out after a while when it is time for you to find that out. It's the nature of the class. Asking prematurely often causes more trouble than it's worth because you don't have the underlying basics that would allow you to understand that yet. It also insults the instructor by assuming that he doesn't know what he's doing. That he was either absent minded and forgot to tell you some crucial information or that he doesn't know.


----------



## Doc (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Maybe that my opinion has something to do with my line of work also.  Investigations, analysis, questioning and understanding how things work is part of my life in general.  Nobody is the same, nobody learns the same way.
> 
> That said, I would never be able to learn from a teacher who basically tells me:  "Just do it, don't ask questions", I would never be able to have any faith in him/her.
> 
> You're right about the way that modern martial arts are taught.  But it's only normal.  The teacher is also an employee of the student.


And what you get is a teacher who wants the money more than he wants to teach you. You get what you pay for. The state of the arts today suggests that's exactly what's happening. Teachers, (they call themselves), who don't know much to begin with, and afraid to hurt their students feelings, equals lousy students who become lousy teachers themselves.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Can the reason be : because "why" doesn't make sense anymore? Because you already know why because of your experience or you asked the question when you were junior?


 
If a six-year-old asked me why 3x+1=10 meant that x=3, I would either have to give him an answer that was inadequate "that's just how algebra is Johnny", or I would have to teach him arithmetic first before I could explain it at all to him. He's simply not ready to understand "why". He doesn't have the underlying basics to understand the problem. All I can tell him at that stage is that it DOES equal 3, not why it equals 3. By the time he understands arithmetic well enough, he won't need to ask "why" because it'll be self evident.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Can the reason be : because "why" doesn't make sense anymore? Because you already know why because of your experience or you asked the question when you were junior?


No. I don't always know why and when I think I do I often find that I'm wrong. why is unimportant in martial arts as a practitioner if you don't know how. By the time you know how the Why's usually sort themselves out. and as I said doc is costantly telling people "why." even when they don't ask.

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Mar 24, 2009)

Kenpodoc said:


> No. I don't always know why and when I think I do I often find that I'm wrong. why is unimportant in martial arts as a practitioner if you don't know how. By the time you know how the Why's usually sort themselves out. and as I said doc is costantly telling people "why." even when they don't ask.
> 
> Jeff



Thank you sir, and you're correct. It is not that I don't explain "why," but which "why's" I choose to explain, and at the level I choose to explain appropriate for the student. But the "whys" are generated by me, not the student. I entertain all questions of "how," and gladly accept challenges to my view, and expect them.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Maybe that my opinion has something to do with my line of work also.  Investigations, analysis, questioning and understanding how things work is part of my life in general.  Nobody is the same, nobody learns the same way.
> 
> That said, I would never be able to learn from a teacher who basically tells me:  "Just do it, don't ask questions", I would never be able to have any faith in him/her.
> 
> You're right about the way that modern martial arts are taught.  But it's only normal.  The teacher is also an employee of the student.


"Why" is a tricky question.  As Doc has said, a large part of training, especially early on, really needs to consist of "Do this" and following directions.  For many beginners, the only question they really need to ask for quite a long time amounts to "what did you want me to do?"

But there's a definite space and need for some understanding of the reasoning behind things, too.  That's where some "why" is acceptable.  "Why did you step that way?"  "Why did you use that technique?"  Not "Why do we do this?"  Often, the legitimate "whys" will answer themselves, if you follow directions.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 24, 2009)

Oh my god!!! I'm starting to believe that we were talking about *different why's* all along!!!

I totally agree that a student shouldn't ask question like:

"Why are we doing this instead of that?" and "Why do you teach me that?" 

That would be terrible and very non-productive...

But, there is another way to see "why" questions:

"Why is the solar plexus a good target?"
"Why isn't my opponent falling the way he did when you performed the technique on him?"

and for "what if":

"What if my opponent menage to bend his arm? Is there a way to follow that move?"


----------



## marlon (Mar 29, 2009)

I think i must be very imprecise when i answer questions of "why" in kempo.  Or i am just pursuing an agenda...I always do my best to explain 'how' for every 'why' question posed because to me they are so interrelated that i cannot separate the 2 easily.  This may reflect my limitations.  However, i welcome all questions and most students will ask 'why' about particulars of a technique and usually only after they have learned how and i have explained how...but the 'why' question for me fills the picture relating to our style of fighting and movement, the philosophy and intent that drives kempo to function as kempo and not as taikwando or shotokan as examples.  It is true that the more one learns and practices...the more one becomnes better at the 'how' the better one can fight...yet there are legitimate styles out there that have different responses to attacks based on thier 'way' of fighting and thier system approach.  It could lead to confusion in a student if someone else explains a difference that is logical on the mechanics the 'how' and still very different or contradictory to whgat i teach if the student cannot ask 'why' to me and have me explain some of 'the bigger picture' of our style as i understand it.  So, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Doc, i find that 'why' questions are great and are exceptional opportunities to teach students and help develop thinking practitioners.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon (Mar 29, 2009)

What if... i do think, is not a functional question.

Marlon


----------



## Doc (Mar 29, 2009)

marlon said:


> What if... i do think, is not a functional question.
> 
> Marlon



They are the same expressed slightly differently. 
Why do I step if? or What if I can't step here?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2009)

Doc said:


> They are the same expressed slightly differently.
> Why do I step if? or What if I can't step here?


 
What if I did not respond to this post?

Why did I respond to this post?

Nope...they can be rather different.

What if I stop responding to this post form this point on

Why did I stop responding to this post?

Nope...still different

What if is both philosophically and psychologically vastly different from why.

What if I never did this...Why did I do that?

What if I never did this is looking to things like how would things be different. Why did I do that is looking more to the reason something was done. What if is in most cases self defeating and why is a way to learn. 

With that I bid you adieu


----------



## Doc (Mar 29, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> What if I did not respond to this post?
> 
> Why did I respond to this post?
> 
> ...


The end result is the same. You didn't get any better.


----------



## marlon (Mar 29, 2009)

Doc said:


> The end result is the same. You didn't get any better.


 
I disagree.  "why step here" is a question of how-do-i-make-this-technique-work, " what about the how of this technique" requires that i step here...  "what if i cannot step here" is a discussion of "what if's" that leads nowhere.  one is an opportunity to teach / learn thereby get better; and,  the other is about finding reasons not to get better.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2009)

*Doc*, what am I missing in your viewpoint that makes me think you're being deliberately obtuse (I'm not trying to be insulting here, it's a truly honest question)?

"Why?" is a very important question indeed and it seems from what I read of your input above that calling it "How?" instead makes no functional difference; "Why?" is just accessing the same answer from a different angle (and a more direct one at that).

The "Why?" of a technique is core to the understanding of that technique. "What?" and "How?" are both subordinate to it (as is "Where?" to a large extent).

Your post#20 above just adds to my confusion as to what you are driving at?


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 29, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> What if I did not respond to this post?
> 
> Why did I respond to this post?
> 
> ...


 
What I understood Doc to be saying is that if you ask "what if you can't do A" then naturally flows into the "why are you going to B over C or D." It made sense to me, but then I am used to hearing "everything depends on everything else."

And I don't think he was making the assertion that as a matter of strict logic that 'why' is an identical question to 'what-if.'


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 29, 2009)

marlon said:


> I think i must be very imprecise when i answer questions of "why" in kempo. Or i am just pursuing an agenda...I always do my best to explain 'how' for every 'why' question posed because to me they are so interrelated that i cannot separate the 2 easily. This may reflect my limitations. However, i welcome all questions and most students will ask 'why' about particulars of a technique and usually only after they have learned how and i have explained how...but the 'why' question for me fills the picture relating to our style of fighting and movement, the philosophy and intent that drives kempo to function as kempo and not as taikwando or shotokan as examples. It is true that the more one learns and practices...the more one becomnes better at the 'how' the better one can fight...yet there are legitimate styles out there that have different responses to attacks based on thier 'way' of fighting and thier system approach. It could lead to confusion in a student if someone else explains a difference that is logical on the mechanics the 'how' and still very different or contradictory to whgat i teach if the student cannot ask 'why' to me and have me explain some of 'the bigger picture' of our style as i understand it. So, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Doc, i find that 'why' questions are great and are exceptional opportunities to teach students and help develop thinking practitioners.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 
I'd also suggest that there are lots of different why questions.  And I think there are few answers to a question of "why do we do X" that are universal and exist without regard for context.


----------



## Doc (Mar 29, 2009)

marlon said:


> I disagree.  "why step here" is a question of how-do-i-make-this-technique-work, " what about the how of this technique" requires that i step here...  "what if i cannot step here" is a discussion of "what if's" that leads nowhere.  one is an opportunity to teach / learn thereby get better; and,  the other is about finding reasons not to get better.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon



How to step where I tell you is more important, than why, and why won't teach you how.


----------



## marlon (Mar 29, 2009)

Doc said:


> How to step where I tell you is more important, than why, and why won't teach you how.


 
i will remeber this distinction whenever, should i ever get to learn directly from you Doc.  i appreciate your  perspective.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 30, 2009)

I don't remember who told me this, might have been Doc or might have been Dr Crouch or maybe someone else:

"First learn HOW to do it; then once you can do it, you have the rest of your life to learn WHY it works"


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> I don't remember who told me this, might have been Doc or might have been Dr Crouch or maybe someone else:
> 
> "First learn HOW to do it; then once you can do it, you have the rest of your life to learn WHY it works"



For an activity that demands high level performance at the core of its purpose, that would seem to be logical. The controversy is wrapped in the myth that permeates arts taught as a business in the west. "If you don't understand why you do something, you can't learn how to do it." But that is typical of most students at the bottom of any class of activity when "what" is being asked is strangely unfamiliar, and there is a lack of perspective. Students have natural curiosity. They want to know, "where is this going?" if they cannot readily see it for themselves.

Sometimes the "why" questions are good, but most often, they are not. Only  a really good and knowledgeable teacher can decide which "why" questions are, or can be conveyed simplistic enough to not derail the physical lessons. Therefore, in my lineage, students may not generate the question, "why," but that doesn't mean that teachers do not volunteer answers when they are relevant. It is the policy that students may not ask, however.

You want to learn to defend yourself, I presume. You've done your homework, given up some cash, and invested in equipment. It would appear at this point you have a level of trust in where you are, or you shouldn't be there. Now give the instructor the courtesy of doing his job, until you feel he is not helping you, than move on.

Don't make the mistake however, of realizing you are not being taught well, but than hang around anyway because you've invested time money and ego, and now you need to stay a little while longer chasing a belt that is worthless anyway, to make you feel better about your poor decision.

I stand guilty of that phrase David, and that is how I teach. Anyone that wants my instruction that thinks they are smarter than me in my area of expertise, should be teaching themselves and will be, because I know I wont.

I turn out some pretty good people, and none of them seem to mind, or the benefit of the instructions is high enough to make them overlook and old instructors stupidity.


----------



## marlon (Mar 30, 2009)

i certainly hope that no one has understood any of my comments to mean tyhat how is not of primary importance.  I use the question of  'why' in my personal style of teaching (for good or for ill) to explain how because for me one leads to the other and back again.  I do not wait for  a why question to happen in order to explain how i just use it to emphasize the how.  My point is that i find a 'why' question most of the time a good learning and teaching opportunity that i can share with the class and at times deepen my understanding of the material also, as i am not as senior as some others nor have i had the benefit of learning from great masters (although my Shihan, i find brilliant).  I have had to fight for a long period in my life and i have had to rerstrain violent, aggitated patients and deal with some young want to be thugs. So i have some training and some experience and am seeking to make the best of it.  The whgy questions have helped my understanding of how and my explainations of how...but the focus is of course on learning how.

Marlon


----------



## Tames D (Mar 30, 2009)

Only in the wonderful world of Kenpo can a discussion like this exist.


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2009)

QUI-GON said:


> Only in the wonderful world of Kenpo can a discussion like this exist.



You left out the word "wacky."


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Mar 31, 2009)

Doc said:


> The controversy is wrapped in the myth that permeates arts taught as a business in the west. "If you don't understand why you do something, you can't learn how to do it." But that is typical of most students at the bottom of any class of activity when "what" is being asked is strangely unfamiliar, and there is a lack of perspective. Students have natural curiosity. They want to know, "where is this going?" if they cannot readily see it for themselves.



Doc, do you discount the value of curiosity? In my teaching, I've found that when a student asks a question, it can mean any combination of a number of things:

1. I've not been clear in my presentation.
2. I've not motivated the material properly to give them context.
3. They are not ready for the material being presented.
4. They require a different presentation to understand the material.
5. They are seeking to make connections in their mind between the present lesson and other lessons.
6. They are using their brains and see possibilities and implications of the material beyond the context of the lesson at hand.

And it is my experience when one student asks a question, others have the same question but are too timid to ask. A good answer to a well asked and/or well timed question can make the difference between a great class and just another drill.



Doc said:


> Sometimes the "why" questions are good, but most often, they are not. Only  a really good and knowledgeable teacher can decide which "why" questions are, or can be conveyed simplistic enough to not derail the physical lessons. Therefore, in my lineage, students may not generate the question, "why," but that doesn't mean that teachers do not volunteer answers when they are relevant. It is the policy that students may not ask, however.



So, "really good and knowledgeable teachers" can decide. But in your lineage, students are not allowed to ask why. Does that mean in your lineage you don't have "really good and knowledgeable teachers"? I mean no disrespect by that question. I mean only to bring to your attention a valid inference that one can draw from your statement.

Your rule sounds like a good one in a group class dedicated to physical training or first-level instruction. It might even be appropriate in other settings depending on the personalities and goals of your students -- i.e., if they lack discipline or seek only to be fighters.

It sounds like a horrible rule for private lessons, advanced classes, and seminars. And it would run counter to nourishing real students of the art.



Doc said:


> I stand guilty of that phrase David, and that is how I teach. Anyone that wants my instruction that thinks they are smarter than me in my area of expertise, should be teaching themselves and will be, because I know I wont.



Wow, Doc. I'm sorry to hear you say that. It seems you think a question is a challenge to your authority instead of an exploration of ideas. If that's the case, then that is sad.

That is not the attitude I would expect to hear coming from someone who holds a PhD and runs an organization named "The Martial Science University". It is my understanding that the foundation of both the sciences and universities is to always allow the questioning of ideas. I also thought Mr. Parker believed there was always room to challenge what we know or are taught.

peace,
stephen


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 31, 2009)

It's probably best not to let the thread stall on raising our eyebrows at just one sensei's methodology.

I couldn't agree less with *Doc*'s approach but it is *his* approach and not one that I imagine will ever directly impinge on my training (given different country, different art and so forth ).

To me, "Why?" is a very critical question for a student to ask. I certainly don't want anyone I teach for any amount of time to be willing to just accept what I tell them as gospel. Learning and understanding comes from questioning. 

It is true that when anyone starts in an art you don't know enough to know what questions to ask - you have no frame of reference. But time reveals that in any established art, particularly koryu ones, there are answers to be found and the student begins to know what to ask.

As the years mount, I find I still have those moments which lead to a deeper understanding of how various techniques interleave with each other. Often these 'revelations' come about because of the foundations laid by a "Why?" I asked years ago :lol:.

It is those moments which are what I term 'true learning'; the question opened the gate to a path that lead me to the answer suitable for my level of comprehension.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 31, 2009)

I think that very often, "why" is the wrong question.  For example, "Why would you spear-hand someone in the throat?"

The answer is self evident.  To kill them.  Trying to prove a different intent in a court of law will be difficult.

So, the question itself is flawed, yet leads to a discussion of "how" and then onto "when" and/or "under what circumstances."  I find that more mature practitioners don't ask "why" as often.  That may be because I answer the question as stated, often forcing them to restate what they want to know.  I do that because I have found often in that when I am able to state my question clearly and correctly, I find the answer.  The question becomes a search for validation of my idea.  Often, when I would ask my instructor a question, he would ask me, "Are you asking me or telling me?"  I would then get sent to the mat to work it out for myself, leading me to conclude that the answer to theoretical questions is found in real practice.

My father-in-law, a career theologian and academic with multiple Ph.Ds once told me that he felt like he could find all the answers if he could just figure out the right questions.


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Mar 31, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> My father-in-law, a career theologian and academic with multiple Ph.Ds once told me that he felt like he could find all the answers if he could just figure out the right questions.



Your father-in-law was very wise. Genius is found in the question, not the answer.

peace,
stephen


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 31, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> So, "really good and knowledgeable teachers" can decide. But in your lineage, students are not allowed to ask why. Does that mean in your lineage you don't have "really good and knowledgeable teachers"? I mean no disrespect by that question. I mean only to bring to your attention a valid inference that one can draw from your statement.


 
As a student, let me try to share my experiences. There is a certain unspoken, unstated protocol to asking questions. Not only are questions asked, but sometimes they are asked from a place of doubt or disbelief. So, there are certainly questions out on the floor, but it's going to be hard to fully put into words that culture.

The information comes out like a steady stream of water from a garden hose. You just have to be present, aware, and on track. The term 'to Bode' came into slang usage from Bode's early tendency to want to drink from a fire hose (my metaphor). I've heard Bode say he doesn't ask near the amount of questions anymore because the answers come if he is just patient or thinks about it some first. Good questions at the appropriate time are extremely useful, but a lot of questions with the answers to which you won't fully grasp can frustrate or retard the learning process. And a lot of 'bad' questions will slow down the entire class.

I'd also add Doc VERY much has a vision for a student moving along the curriculum. Because he knows where he wants the student to be at a certain level and has the material meticolously developed, I honestly think you could get by on very few 'why' questions. This is because the answers will come as a natural part of the material he has presented. That is a credit to the decades he has spent thinking about how to teach all this. The learning process is a steady pace, not a sprint.



Stephen Kurtzman said:


> Your rule sounds like a good one in a group class dedicated to physical training or first-level instruction. It might even be appropriate in other settings depending on the personalities and goals of your students -- i.e., if they lack discipline or seek only to be fighters.


 
Doc is very much about function first. You don't need understand how or why it works. You aren't going to be teaching the material. In the beginning, the focus is on performing the material at the highest level possible. White belts need to perform first, understand later. It's the warrior and scholar dichotomy.



Stephen Kurtzman said:


> It sounds like a horrible rule for private lessons, advanced classes, and seminars. And it would run counter to nourishing real students of the art.


 
Doc didn't say he never explains why, it's just not the approach taken in the beginning. Seminars aren't with his students, so yes those are usually done somewhat differently. As Doc said, it really falls to the teacher to provide appropriate answers at the correct time.



Stephen Kurtzman said:


> Wow, Doc. I'm sorry to hear you say that. It seems you think a question is a challenge to your authority instead of an exploration of ideas. If that's the case, then that is sad.


 
No, in fact I think Doc likes it sometimes when someone falls into the trap of thinking something he is showing will not work. He has created the expectation that the teacher always has to be able to demonstrate that what he is saying will work. But I don't think of this as exactly a 'why question', it is more a demonstration. 



Stephen Kurtzman said:


> That is not the attitude I would expect to hear coming from someone who holds a PhD and runs an organization named "The Martial Science University". It is my understanding that the foundation of both the sciences and universities is to always allow the questioning of ideas. I also thought Mr. Parker believed there was always room to challenge what we know or are taught.
> 
> peace,
> stephen


 
To borrow from the academic model, you can't show up for first day of basic freshman math and start asking questions about calculus. As the student you aren't ready for it and neither is the class. It's a building process. Doc is a phenomenal teacher. I can attest, if you are patient and build a good foundation, what you need will come. I ask a lot less questions now than I did 10 years ago, but I think I understand it A LOT better now.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 31, 2009)

Why ask why?


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Mar 31, 2009)

SL4Drew,

Thanks for your perspective on that. Based on your posting, it seems Dr. Chapél did not do himself justice in answering the question the way he did.

peace,
stephen


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Mar 31, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> Why ask why?



Because!


----------



## Matt (Mar 31, 2009)

Doc said:


> You left out the word "wacky."



It's implied. Sort of like an unvoiced consonant or something.


----------



## Doc (Mar 31, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> Doc, do you discount the value of curiosity? In my teaching, I've found that when a student asks a question, it can mean any combination of a number of things:
> 
> 1. I've not been clear in my presentation.
> 2. I've not motivated the material properly to give them context.
> ...


No argument with anything you said. However, our curriculum is unique academically and physically, initially geared to one purpose - to the students benefit in developing physical skills. Nothing else, and anything else comes later.


> So, "really good and knowledgeable teachers" can decide. But in your lineage, students are not allowed to ask why. Does that mean in your lineage you don't have "really good and knowledgeable teachers"? I mean no disrespect by that question. I mean only to bring to your attention a valid inference that one can draw from your statement.


No need to qualify. My teachers are the best and most well educated group of Kenpo people around. They come to me with vast amounts of education, and I shape their intelligence to teach the skills, and watch them grow in the process - but it is all measured. However i put not only the skill of my students against anyones of comparable level, but their intelligence as well.


> Your rule sounds like a good one in a group class dedicated to physical training or first-level instruction. It might even be appropriate in other settings depending on the personalities and goals of your students -- i.e., if they lack discipline or seek only to be fighters.
> 
> It sounds like a horrible rule for private lessons, advanced classes, and seminars. And it would run counter to nourishing real students of the art.


You need to reread my posts on the subject sir. Anyone who has ever had an advanced class with me, or a very rare private, (don't believe in them in general), will tell you otherwise.


> Wow, Doc. I'm sorry to hear you say that. It seems you think a question is a challenge to your authority instead of an exploration of ideas. If that's the case, then that is sad.


That's probably as far from who I am as you can get. I have written into our curriculum, (which I write in its entirety), something I call a "Challenge Test." Any student at anytime has the right to challenge the "how" of anything to check its efficacy against another method. I feel this is important so that students will believe in material, and therefore will not hesitate to utilize it. But you may only challenge test something that you can do, not things that you cannot, and until you can actually do, you certainly have no need for why.


> That is not the attitude I would expect to hear coming from someone who holds a PhD and runs an organization named "The Martial Science University". It is my understanding that the foundation of both the sciences and universities is to always allow the questioning of ideas. I also thought Mr. Parker believed there was always room to challenge what we know or are taught.


You should read what I wrote. Sprinkled throughout are words like, "beginners," or phrases like "in the beginning." I have professional musicians, more than several doctors, a plethora of lawyers, top level government project computer geeks and code writers, college professors, a slew of gun totin' macho cops, federal agents, sheriff's, a fireman or two who run into burning buildings for a living, and more than a couple corporate executives. High powered hard charging people accustomed to giving orders and having people jump. They all get their questions answered at the appropriate time, but I have to admit sometimes I have to stop and ask them if they are going to challenge me on some of the things I've said. Most of the time they just look at me at say, "No, we know better by now. We'll just wait."

Information overload is a more likely scenario, than withholding answers to simple "why's."

Anyone who has ever had a class or seminar with me will attest to this, but in the beginning, I give you the "why's" as I teach, because I know "where" they are. I'll give you an example. I'll watch Bode or someone do something, and their body language will change, and they'll look at me and begin to speak. Before they can get a word out I will say, "Because ........" and answer their question. It easy when you know the question before the student thinks to ask it.

Until someone actually studies with us, they have no idea of the level of sophistication of what we do, and the teaching method. It is not like any other "martial art" class. It is indeed actually, "Martial Science" lecture sprinkled with biomechanical physical performance training.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 31, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> I think that very often, "why" is the wrong question. For example, "Why would you spear-hand someone in the throat?"
> 
> The answer is self evident. To kill them. Trying to prove a different intent in a court of law will be difficult.
> 
> ...


 
yeah, what he said 

Since the first few minutes after I met him, literally, less than 10 minutes, at the airport, Doc laid down the 2 rules of questions:
-No questions that start with "why"
-If you want an answer, ask a question


I've never understood him to mean that questions aren't allowed, but you had to think them through before you asked.

I've found that when I am first shown something, "why" questions arise in my mind.  If let those germinate a while, and just learn to do the thing, many of those initial questions are answered just by understanding what I have made my body do.  Then I have more detailed questions of execution, and maybe some theory, which are beter than those first questions.


----------



## Matt (Mar 31, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> yeah, what he said
> 
> Since the first few minutes after I met him, literally, less than 10 minutes, at the airport, Doc laid down the 2 rules of questions:
> -No questions that start with "why"
> ...



Okay, I see the logic in this. I often get questions that indicate that someone didn't read the directions. Think then ask.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 31, 2009)

it seems sometimes having some boundaries makes you work harder at something...

like, try going an entire day without using any conjugation of "to be" : am is are was were be been being.

Not only will that shift you into a much more self-responsible mode ("I like it" vs "It is good"), it also makes you think about every thing you say before you say it.


----------



## Aikicomp (Apr 1, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> The "Why?" of a technique is core to the understanding of that technique. "What?" and "How?" are both subordinate to it (as is "Where?" to a large extent).
> 
> To me, "Why?" is a very critical question for a student to ask. I certainly don't want anyone I teach for any amount of time to be willing to just accept what I tell them as gospel. Learning and understanding comes from questioning.
> 
> It is true that when anyone starts in an art you don't know enough to know what questions to ask - you have no frame of reference. But time reveals that in any established art, particularly koryu ones, there are answers to be found and the student begins to know what to ask.


 
Very well put and I agree with all you have said. 

IMO, the WHY is just as important as the HOW in relation to the level of technique being taught and the level of the student's experience.

I can show a student HOW to do anything in our system, however, without them understanding the WHY behind it makes learning go a lot slower and they become frustrated a lot easier. On the other hand, keep in mind, that when I do teach I explain the techniques in such a way that most of the why's are answered before they have a chance to ask them. That trait/skill does not come over night and has to be aquired/perfected over years of teaching. 

Any Instructor who will not take the time to answer a students sincere question about a technique the best way they can (whether it's a who, what, where, when or how) so that the student can understand it better and learn it easier and more efficiently is not a "teacher" and never will be with that kind of attitude.

Michael


----------



## Danjo (Apr 1, 2009)

All of this seems to indicate that the "why" isn't axiomatic in the "how". Very rarely will someone need to ask "Why" if they are shown "How". If they do not know _why_, then they probably don't know _how_. If they know _how_, they know _why_. If you do a technique properly, then the reason "why" is "Because it _works_". If someone shows you how to do it differently and it works better, then the reason "why" is "Because it works _better_"

On the other hand, If I'm reading about some technique in a book, internet or magazine, or looking at one on a video, then "Why" may well come up in my mind. It's why I don't belive in that type of training.


----------

