Blood, Sweat and Tears.....Or The Easy Way?

[Steve]

Agreed with everything right up until you said its frustration and stagnation, not laziness, that makes people quit. IMO, it all goes hand in hand. Using myself as an example....as I said earlier, I just began training in a new art. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't the least bit frustrating, to have to learn words in Japanese, the way that they execute strikes and kicks. 26yrs of doing something 1 way, now I have to force myself to learn another way. Yet each and every class I gain a better understanding of things. If I was lazy, I wouldn't be putting in the effort.

I don't think I was very clear. Frustration with stagnation would be a little more accurate. What I meant was that there is a limit to how far you can go with a DVD. It's a hard ceiling. While some will get frustrated with slow progress, I think it's safe to say that most people will become frustrated with a complete lack of progress.

You say it yourself. Each and every class you gain a better understanding of things. What if you didn't? What if you couldn't because you had reached the upper limit of the medium?

Once again, there are two lines of conversation going on from the OP. First is the sweat equity discussion, which I personally believe is self-apparent. Of course you have to commit and do the work. You can't learn Kung Fu like Neo, as badass as that might be. Second is whether we have a genetic predisposition for laziness. I might not call it laziness, but I do believe that we are interested as a species in doing things the easy way, if possible, and that goes for all of us.

And the side conversation has to do with how we learn and why people quit. There is an entire professional community devoted to answering this very question. My opinion is that it's less to do with laziness than other factors.

 

[MJS]

I don't think I was very clear. Frustration with stagnation would be a little more accurate. What I meant was that there is a limit to how far you can go with a DVD. It's a hard ceiling. While some will get frustrated with slow progress, I think it's safe to say that most people will become frustrated with a complete lack of progress.

You say it yourself. Each and every class you gain a better understanding of things. What if you didn't? What if you couldn't because you had reached the upper limit of the medium?

If I didn't understand something, I'd ask. I have asked. I mean, for me anyways, if I'm investing the time and money into training, then I want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it.

When you say reached the upper limit, I'm assuming you mean reached the point where theres nothing new to learn? If thats the case, I'd say a few things could happen: 1) you'd either just keep training because you love the art. Does someone like Rickson Gracie still learn things or has he reached the upper limit? 2) I'd say the person would have to possibly move on to something else, ie: a new art.

Once again, there are two lines of conversation going on from the OP. First is the sweat equity discussion, which I personally believe is self-apparent. Of course you have to commit and do the work. You can't learn Kung Fu like Neo, as badass as that might be. Second is whether we have a genetic predisposition for laziness. I might not call it laziness, but I do believe that we are interested as a species in doing things the easy way, if possible, and that goes for all of us.

And the side conversation has to do with how we learn and why people quit. There is an entire professional community devoted to answering this very question. My opinion is that it's less to do with laziness than other factors.

You're right, part of this is the sweat equity....God knows, we get more of that by getting our butts on the mat. The second part...are we as a society lazy....well, not to sidetrack this thread, but yeah, alot of people are. I mean, look at all the fat kids out there. If they weren't lazy.....

As for taking the easy way....I'm still sticking with what I said earlier...some will and some will not, look for that easy street. The problem or part of the problem, lies with those teachers who encourage the easy street.

 

[Steve]

If I didn't understand something, I'd ask. I have asked. I mean, for me anyways, if I'm investing the time and money into training, then I want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it.

When you say reached the upper limit, I'm assuming you mean reached the point where theres nothing new to learn? If thats the case, I'd say a few things could happen: 1) you'd either just keep training because you love the art. Does someone like Rickson Gracie still learn things or has he reached the upper limit? 2) I'd say the person would have to possibly move on to something else, ie: a new art.

Sorry. Again, I wasn't clear. I meant because the learning medium is limited. In other words, you can only go so far with a DVD. You can't ask questions. You can't get feedback. Email, video chat and such are ways to help mitigate these limitations, but they can't replace in person coaching and mentoring. In order to gain skill, you have to get these things. And without them, you'll quickly find yourself at the limits of what you can gain.

There are other limits, as well. The key point I'm making is related to Bloom's taxonomy, which I mentioned before. If you want to progress beyond comprehension and into Application or Synthesis, you need certain things. If you don't have these things, it will either take you longer or make it impossible to develop any actual, applicable skill. Training and learning theory is one of those things I presume most people aren't very interested in. I see it as being very relevant, but I'm reluctant to go on and on about it because it can be boring.

You're right, part of this is the sweat equity....God knows, we get more of that by getting our butts on the mat. The second part...are we as a society lazy....well, not to sidetrack this thread, but yeah, alot of people are. I mean, look at all the fat kids out there. If they weren't lazy.....

As for taking the easy way....I'm still sticking with what I said earlier...some will and some will not, look for that easy street. The problem or part of the problem, lies with those teachers who encourage the easy street.

I agree that cutting corners should be avoided where it results in compromising quality. But doing things the hard way for no reason is, IMO, lunacy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree that cutting corners should be avoided where it results in compromising quality. But doing things the hard way for no reason is, IMO, lunacy.

I just want to add that where one sees a reason, another sees 'no reason'. Many things are subjective and yet people think of them as objective. My wife likes to knit. It is laborious, time-consuming, and (sometimes) expensive for her to make something by hand. One might say there is 'no reason' for her to do this; we have hats and scarves, etc, available inexpensively in retail outlets. They certainly do as good a job at keep heads and necks warm. And the best of them are quite nice looking, too. However, she likes to do it, and that for her is reason enough. My opinion of her reason has no meaning.

Some may feel that there is something to be gained by doing things 'the hard way' which has nothing to do with the skill being learned. It is beyond our ability to judge what is a good reason for someone else; only for ourselves.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think this whole thing is getting caught up in "Easy way vs Hard way" when in reality is is neither....there is only the right way if you are a serious Martial Artist.

But the right way is not the same for every person and every style.

 

[Steve]

I just want to add that where one sees a reason, another sees 'no reason'. Many things are subjective and yet people think of them as objective. My wife likes to knit. It is laborious, time-consuming, and (sometimes) expensive for her to make something by hand. One might say there is 'no reason' for her to do this; we have hats and scarves, etc, available inexpensively in retail outlets. They certainly do as good a job at keep heads and necks warm. And the best of them are quite nice looking, too. However, she likes to do it, and that for her is reason enough. My opinion of her reason has no meaning.

Some may feel that there is something to be gained by doing things 'the hard way' which has nothing to do with the skill being learned. It is beyond our ability to judge what is a good reason for someone else; only for ourselves.

Bill, I hope it's clear that I agree completely. It's about defining the goals and prioritizing them. Is tradition more important than effectiveness? Is fitness more important than style? As I said, suffering and hardship for their own sake is vanity, unless tradition is the goal and that tradition is to suffer.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, I hope it's clear that I agree completely. It's about defining the goals and prioritizing them. Is tradition more important than effectiveness? Is fitness more important than style?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, Steve, but I'm not clear that you do agree completely. You speak using terms indicating that you know what the answers are; I suggest you don't (and not saying I do either). "Tradition more important than effectiveness" implies that if one is bound to tradition, one places it over effectiveness; there can be no other choice. This might be true if the tradition did not bestow EFFECTIVE benefits that we just do not perceive. And whether or not that is true is subjective; I don't know, I'm guessing you don't either.

As I said, suffering and hardship for their own sake is vanity, unless tradition is the goal and that tradition is to suffer.

Or unless there are additional values that you do not perceive. The fact that you don't perceive them does not make them non-existent.

Speaking of suffering, I do not understand The Hermanos Penitentes (http://www.sangres.com/history/penitente01.htm). Although Catholic, I do not grasp what there is to be gained by flogging oneself, dragging around a heavy cross, even allowing oneself to be nailed or tied to a cross in imitation of the Crucifixion. However, I accept that those who practice it find a value in it and that this value is somewhere between 'vanity' on the one hand, and 'tradition to suffer' in another. I don't know what that value is; but I accept that there may be one even if I can't see it.

I don't know if adhering to certain traditional methods provides more or less effective results than finding non-traditional methods that attempt to 'cut to the chase' as it were. But I don't put traditional methods in the box of "either you prefer agony for no apparent reason, or you prefer to learn effective self-defense."

 

[Steve]

I'm not trying to pick a fight, Steve, but I'm not clear that you do agree completely. You speak using terms indicating that you know what the answers are; I suggest you don't (and not saying I do either). "Tradition more important than effectiveness" implies that if one is bound to tradition, one places it over effectiveness; there can be no other choice. This might be true if the tradition did not bestow EFFECTIVE benefits that we just do not perceive. And whether or not that is true is subjective; I don't know, I'm guessing you don't either.

Nope. Not at all. It means that if conflict arises between them, where would you make the sacrifice? If you are forced to pick one over the other, which do you pick? And there's usually not a right or wrong answer. Everyone prioritizes things differently. We make these choices all the time, every single day.

I don't in any way believe that you're picking a fight. I also don't think you understand my point. When you say, "where one sees a reason, another sees 'no reason'. Many things are subjective and yet people think of them as objective," I agree.

The two paragraphs above are not contradictory in the least. One of the basic premises of the OP is that taking the easy way out is bad, and conversely, "blood, sweat and tears" is good. The implication is that without blood, sweat and tears, it (where "it" could be anything) is of less value. I disagree... unless "blood, sweat and tears" is, itself, a priority. In which case, I would call that vanity.

Again, as I said, suffering and hardship for their own sake is vanity.

Or unless there are additional values that you do not perceive. The fact that you don't perceive them does not make them non-existent.

Speaking of suffering, I do not understand The Hermanos Penitentes (http://www.sangres.com/history/penitente01.htm). Although Catholic, I do not grasp what there is to be gained by flogging oneself, dragging around a heavy cross, even allowing oneself to be nailed or tied to a cross in imitation of the Crucifixion. However, I accept that those who practice it find a value in it and that this value is somewhere between 'vanity' on the one hand, and 'tradition to suffer' in another. I don't know what that value is; but I accept that there may be one even if I can't see it.

I don't know if adhering to certain traditional methods provides more or less effective results than finding non-traditional methods that attempt to 'cut to the chase' as it were. But I don't put traditional methods in the box of "either you prefer agony for no apparent reason, or you prefer to learn effective self-defense."

If you are summarizing my point as "either you prefer agony for no apparent reason, or you prefer to learn effective self-defense," you're completely misunderstanding me.

I don't know much about self flagellation, but I'm presuming that there's a point. The pain is believed to do... something. Right? The people who do this believe that there's a spiritual purpose to it? If so, it's not an appropriate comparison.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nope. Not at all. It means that if conflict arises between them, where would you make the sacrifice? If you are forced to pick one over the other, which do you pick? And there's usually not a right or wrong answer. Everyone prioritizes things differently. We make these choices all the time, every single day.

I don't in any way believe that you're picking a fight. I also don't think you understand my point. When you say, "where one sees a reason, another sees 'no reason'. Many things are subjective and yet people think of them as objective," I agree.

The two paragraphs above are not contradictory in the least. One of the basic premises of the OP is that taking the easy way out is bad, and conversely, "blood, sweat and tears" is good. The implication is that without blood, sweat and tears, it (where "it" could be anything) is of less value. I disagree... unless "blood, sweat and tears" is, itself, a priority. In which case, I would call that vanity.

OK, I guess I understand. I seem to be squicking on your use of the term 'vanity'. Maybe I'm just quite seeing it the way you do. The closest I can come is if you're referring to a preference for pain for it's own sake, which would be just kind of weird, unless one was a masochist. I mean, does anyone do that? Or perhaps (not trying to put words in your mouth) you are thinking of situations like when people talk about the 'dignity of labor' as if labor by itself was somehow more honorable than any other way of earning a living. I'd get that, I think.

Again, as I said, suffering and hardship for their own sake is vanity.
If you are summarizing my point as "either you prefer agony for no apparent reason, or you prefer to learn effective self-defense," you're completely misunderstanding me.

I don't know much about self flagellation, but I'm presuming that there's a point. The pain is believed to do... something. Right? The people who do this believe that there's a spiritual purpose to it? If so, it's not an appropriate comparison.

Well, I guess that's what I was trying to get to. Look at it this way. People learn differently, right? So if you take martial arts completely out of the historical and semi-mystical framework that some put it in, and just teach the moves themselves, good body mechanics, solid blocks, punches, and kicks, etc; some are going to eat that right up. And those people might think that's the way to do it. Others might find it harder to digest or hold their interest. By keeping the tradition, the history, even some of the woo-woo stuff, they find it easier to absorb those same principles. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right?

And my point comparing it to the flagellants was just what you said; they get 'something' out of it that I don't, that I presume you don't. I don't think that makes it a valid pursuit for everybody, but it doesn't make it invalid either. They've found something that works for them. If one is religious, and the end goal is forging a closer relationship with God, then how that happens may be less significant than that it does happen; and some people seem to need it presented in a different way than others.

So with regard to 'blood, sweat, and tears', I think if pursuing martial arts training is more conducive to learning for some in a traditional environment, it's not for nothing, and it's not vanity. For those people, there is value in the pain, and it's not for the sake of the pain itself, I think.

Another thought I had was that when I was a kid, I wanted a bicycle. I worked in the corn fields, I mowed lawns, I delivered newspaper, and I bought a bicycle. Later that year, my sisters all got bikes for Christmas. I was ticked off. But I noticed something over the years. I still had my bike when I graduated from high school. Theirs had long since gone to the junkyard. I valued what I had to work for. They had it given to them and did not value what they were given. Nothing magical there, but perhaps there is some value in hard work for the sake of hard work because if nothing else, it tends to make us place a higher value on what we are learning. Just a thought.

 

[Chris Parker]

Just curious how the brain size and jaw muscles were related? Last I knew, jaw size and dentition in humans were related to diet. When humans began using fire, strong jaw muscles and larger stronger teeth were no longer needed as food got softer when it was cooked.

Not wanting to give over too much thread drift to this, let's see if I can sum up in a short bit here....

The jaw muscles relate directly to brain size due to the way they attach to the skull, and the amount of pressure they exert. With great apes, and some hominid ancestors, such as Australopithecus, the jaw muscles are quite large, which has them needing large anchor points on the skull. In terms of where those anchor points are, put your fingers on your temples, and clench and unclench your jaw, you'll feel them moving.

This larger anchor point meant that the skull needed to be stronger (thicker) to withstand the pressure exerted by the muscles themselves, all of which lead to there being less room for the brain itself inside. When Homo Erectus' jaw's weakened (both by having less muscle, and by having the muscular fibres themselves less substantial, exerting less pressure), it allowed a range of changes, including altering the shape of the forehead, realigning the base of the skull and the brain stem itself, allowing larger development of vocal cords, and more.

Oh, but it's actually thought that the weakening of the jaw was a mutation that caught on, which allowed the brain power to start cooking food, rather than cooked food being the reason for the weakened jaw muscles, so that parts the other way around.

That is interesting, but as I type this on my laptop, in an air conditioned room, having driven myself to work, mulling over the inventions and advancements that I enjoy, I just have to disagree. While the show seems interesting, we're literally awash in evidence that if there's a more efficient, easier way to do something, we are driven as a species to find it. From industry to agriculture to you name it.

Now, it does seem to me that the show illuminates something a little bit different. As humans, we rely upon visionaries in order to make substantive change. I would agree that most people copy others. The tendency is to see something being done better and to copy it, saying, "Aha. That's brilliant. I'm going to do that, too." I do that. You'd be dumb not to, in my opinion. But you can't ignore that we, as a species, have an abundance of visionaries.

Most relevant, though, is that whether you are inventing a better mousetrap or simply buying/copying that mousetrap, you're doing so out of a genuine desire to make your life easier.

As for the thread, I'll admit that I'm still not sure what the point of it is. If it's about skills development, it seems pretty self apparent to me that in order to move beyond an academic understanding, you have to get hands on instruction.

If it's about whether it's better to take the easy way out or not, I'd say it depends entirely on what the goal is. Suffering and hardship for its own sake is vanity, in my opinion. Unless, of course, tradition is the goal and that tradition is to suffer.

See, I don't see any of that as people taking an easy way out of anything. Having a social preference for comfort is one thing, but that's not the same as saying that humans as a species are predicated to easy approaches. Honestly, if we were, we wouldn't have bothered to invent all those cool things!

 

[punisher73]

I'm not trying to pick a fight, Steve, but I'm not clear that you do agree completely. You speak using terms indicating that you know what the answers are; I suggest you don't (and not saying I do either). "Tradition more important than effectiveness" implies that if one is bound to tradition, one places it over effectiveness; there can be no other choice. This might be true if the tradition did not bestow EFFECTIVE benefits that we just do not perceive. And whether or not that is true is subjective; I don't know, I'm guessing you don't either.



Or unless there are additional values that you do not perceive. The fact that you don't perceive them does not make them non-existent.

I don't know if adhering to certain traditional methods provides more or less effective results than finding non-traditional methods that attempt to 'cut to the chase' as it were. But I don't put traditional methods in the box of "either you prefer agony for no apparent reason, or you prefer to learn effective self-defense."

Reminds me of a story. My mother-in-law told me about making easter dinner (I have heard others tell the same story as well, so I don't know if it is urban legend or not, but the point is valid) and that her grandmother used to always cut the top of the ham off before putting it in the oven. Well, one day her mom asked why she did that and she replied, "I don't know, my mother always did it that way." So, they went to the grandmother and asked her why she did it. She replied, "I don't know, that is that way my mother always did it.". So they all went to the great-grandmother and asked her why she did it. She replied, "Well, at the time, the ham was too big for the oven so I had to cut the top part off to make it fit."

I think this is the crux of the matter with tradition vs. effectiveness. If you can see and know the benefits of tradition it is a good thing, but if we don't know why we are doing what we are doing than I would argue that it might not be effective (A hammer is no good to me, if I have no idea what it is for and how to use it and I only use it as a paperweight). I remember one person said, "Tradition is a euphemism for laziness" and I think there can be alot of truth to that statement if we don't know why we are doing what we are doing.

So, I think for some the traditional way is BOTH the easy way and the hard way depending on the mindset. For some people, it is the easy way because tradition states that "we do it this way" and no thought is given to "why" or how it applies to a whole system. For other people, the traditional way is hard because not everything is spelled out for you (ie: kata applications) and you have to dig to get the deeper meanings and concepts.

I also think that many people make the mistake of "knowledge of something" vs. "wisdom of something". For example, look at new students that you show a technique. They practice it a couple times and then can demonstrate the technique. Do they "know" the technique? Could they apply it on someone? I think this is where the easy way comes in, they get to the point of regurgitating and think they have learned it. My instructor used to have a very old school attitude with that. If he asked if someone "knew" something and they said they did, he would have them come up and full contact spar using that technique or kata and apply it.

 

[MJS]

Sorry. Again, I wasn't clear. I meant because the learning medium is limited. In other words, you can only go so far with a DVD. You can't ask questions. You can't get feedback. Email, video chat and such are ways to help mitigate these limitations, but they can't replace in person coaching and mentoring. In order to gain skill, you have to get these things. And without them, you'll quickly find yourself at the limits of what you can gain.

There are other limits, as well. The key point I'm making is related to Bloom's taxonomy, which I mentioned before. If you want to progress beyond comprehension and into Application or Synthesis, you need certain things. If you don't have these things, it will either take you longer or make it impossible to develop any actual, applicable skill. Training and learning theory is one of those things I presume most people aren't very interested in. I see it as being very relevant, but I'm reluctant to go on and on about it because it can be boring.

True. So that brings us full circle again, to the point of this thread: why don't people have those required things? I honestly find it hard to believe that past martial artists, were as lazy as we see some today. Oh, I'm sure there may've been some lazy ones, but there were others that busted their ***. I've heard that some of the old school Kajukenbo schools, had people checking them out, and not lasting long, due to the intensity of the art.

I agree that cutting corners should be avoided where it results in compromising quality. But doing things the hard way for no reason is, IMO, lunacy.

Hmm...well, I'll defer to what Bill said, regarding this. Again, I'd say it all comes down to the task at hand. It'd be fairly simple to pick up the phone and order a pizza, but like Bills wife who enjoys knitting, my Great Grandmother (rest her soul) loved making a home-made pizza. If I'm driving to an area I'm unfamiliar with, I could use a map, or punch the info into my gps. But we're talking about Martial Arts training. IMHO, if one is serious about their training, no shortcuts will be taken.

 

[Steve]

OK, I guess I understand. I seem to be squicking on your use of the term 'vanity'. Maybe I'm just quite seeing it the way you do. The closest I can come is if you're referring to a preference for pain for it's own sake, which would be just kind of weird, unless one was a masochist. I mean, does anyone do that? Or perhaps (not trying to put words in your mouth) you are thinking of situations like when people talk about the 'dignity of labor' as if labor by itself was somehow more honorable than any other way of earning a living. I'd get that, I think.

This exactly.

Well, I guess that's what I was trying to get to. Look at it this way. People learn differently, right? So if you take martial arts completely out of the historical and semi-mystical framework that some put it in, and just teach the moves themselves, good body mechanics, solid blocks, punches, and kicks, etc; some are going to eat that right up. And those people might think that's the way to do it. Others might find it harder to digest or hold their interest. By keeping the tradition, the history, even some of the woo-woo stuff, they find it easier to absorb those same principles. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right?

And my point comparing it to the flagellants was just what you said; they get 'something' out of it that I don't, that I presume you don't. I don't think that makes it a valid pursuit for everybody, but it doesn't make it invalid either. They've found something that works for them. If one is religious, and the end goal is forging a closer relationship with God, then how that happens may be less significant than that it does happen; and some people seem to need it presented in a different way than others.

So with regard to 'blood, sweat, and tears', I think if pursuing martial arts training is more conducive to learning for some in a traditional environment, it's not for nothing, and it's not vanity. For those people, there is value in the pain, and it's not for the sake of the pain itself, I think.

Another thought I had was that when I was a kid, I wanted a bicycle. I worked in the corn fields, I mowed lawns, I delivered newspaper, and I bought a bicycle. Later that year, my sisters all got bikes for Christmas. I was ticked off. But I noticed something over the years. I still had my bike when I graduated from high school. Theirs had long since gone to the junkyard. I valued what I had to work for. They had it given to them and did not value what they were given. Nothing magical there, but perhaps there is some value in hard work for the sake of hard work because if nothing else, it tends to make us place a higher value on what we are learning. Just a thought.

And once again, I agree. The OP and many of the early posters in this thread might not. There was early on pretty much universal support for doing things the hard way. I was just playing devil's advocate in saying that it's fine for you, if it works for you. However, there's merit to doing things the easy way in many cases. I would even go one step further and say that often (not always) the hard way is more about habit and fear of change than any honorable, desirable ethic. Why are we banging our heads against this rock? Well, because that's what we've always done. As I mentioned in response to Chris, I believe we make progress because we have visionaries. Otherwise, we are a species of habit, and unless confronted with a better way, we will do things the way we have always done them.

The Calf Path
by Sam Walter Foss (1858-1911)One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail, as all calves do.


Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.


The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bellwether sheep
Pursued the trail o’er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bellwethers always do.


And from that day, o’er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made,
And many men wound in and out,
And dodged and turned and bent about,
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because ’twas such a crooked path;
But still they followed — do not laugh —
The first migrations of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked
Because he wobbled when he walked.


This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again.
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.


The years passed on in swiftness fleet.
The road became a village street,
And this, before men were aware,
A city’s crowded thoroughfare,
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.


Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed that zigzag calf about,
And o’er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They follow still his crooked way,
And lose one hundred years a day,
For thus such reverence is lent
To well-established precedent.


A moral lesson this might teach
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,
And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,
And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.


They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move;
But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf!
Ah, many things this tale might teach —
But I am not ordained to preach.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And once again, I agree. The OP and many of the early posters in this thread might not. There was early on pretty much universal support for doing things the hard way. I was just playing devil's advocate in saying that it's fine for you, if it works for you. However, there's merit to doing things the easy way in many cases. I would even go one step further and say that often (not always) the hard way is more about habit and fear of change than any honorable, desirable ethic. Why are we banging our heads against this rock? Well, because that's what we've always done. As I mentioned in response to Chris, I believe we make progress because we have visionaries. Otherwise, we are a species of habit, and unless confronted with a better way, we will do things the way we have always done them.

Ah. OK, I get you, and I agree. I would only add that we can only judge the foolhardiness of adhering to traditional methods over modern (and hence, I presume, easier) methods when the outcome is equal. Many would argue that the outcome is not equal, and that therefore the traditional or 'harder' method offers value.

Why would I do long division when I have short division? Both give me the same answer. I would therefore agree with you that there is no reason (for me) to do long division.

The problem is that long division and short division may not give me the same understanding.

Typically, children are taught (at least I was, a billion years ago) long division before being taught short division, because it provides a level of understanding that makes short division 'make sense'.

But both give the same answer, and short division is easier.

I am not suggesting that 'easy' methods of martial arts training don't also offer understanding as well as results; I'm just using an example. But I think the basic premise can still be seen in the two examples I offered previously. First, that some people learn better in different ways than others, and second, that sometimes people place a higher intrinsic value and thus try harder to obtain things that are difficult rather than things that are easy.

And with regard to the example about doing something without understanding it because of tradition, there is a counterpoint; sometimes it has value. Tradition encodes instructions when information would otherwise be lost over generations. The downside is that sometimes traditions get warped or changed; lack of understanding of the 'why' we do it makes it easier for this to happen. However, with no traditions, there is the chance that the information could be lost entirely over time. We think of information as always being available; and in our modern world, that's largely true. It wasn't the case not so long ago, though. It is possible that there is still information encoded in some martial arts traditions that gives value, even if we currently do not have an understanding of what that value is in scientific (easy) terms.

 

[oftheherd1]

Not wanting to give over too much thread drift to this, let's see if I can sum up in a short bit here....

The jaw muscles relate directly to brain size due to the way they attach to the skull, and the amount of pressure they exert. With great apes, and some hominid ancestors, such as Australopithecus, the jaw muscles are quite large, which has them needing large anchor points on the skull. In terms of where those anchor points are, put your fingers on your temples, and clench and unclench your jaw, you'll feel them moving.

This larger anchor point meant that the skull needed to be stronger (thicker) to withstand the pressure exerted by the muscles themselves, all of which lead to there being less room for the brain itself inside. When Homo Erectus' jaw's weakened (both by having less muscle, and by having the muscular fibres themselves less substantial, exerting less pressure), it allowed a range of changes, including altering the shape of the forehead, realigning the base of the skull and the brain stem itself, allowing larger development of vocal cords, and more.

Oh, but it's actually thought that the weakening of the jaw was a mutation that caught on, which allowed the brain power to start cooking food, rather than cooked food being the reason for the weakened jaw muscles, so that parts the other way around.



...

I guess I need to do more reading. I was not aware of any such hypothesis, that discovery of fire caused musculature change, thereby causing larger brain capacity.

Thanks for your answer.

 

[MJS]

And once again, I agree. The OP and many of the early posters in this thread might not. There was early on pretty much universal support for doing things the hard way. I was just playing devil's advocate in saying that it's fine for you, if it works for you. However, there's merit to doing things the easy way in many cases. I would even go one step further and say that often (not always) the hard way is more about habit and fear of change than any honorable, desirable ethic. Why are we banging our heads against this rock? Well, because that's what we've always done. As I mentioned in response to Chris, I believe we make progress because we have visionaries. Otherwise, we are a species of habit, and unless confronted with a better way, we will do things the way we have always done them.

Steve,

For the record, I think we're on the same page for the most part. I say that because you've admitted that the hard way is the better way, though theres nothing wrong with the easy way. Make no mistake about it...I've done things the easy way. But, as I've said (and I'm not sure if its being missed) I'd say that its situation depending. Would I rather use a snow blower or shovel to clear snow? Well, its a no brainer.....the snow blower or course. Takes less time, and less back breaking...lol. But, when it comes to MA training, which I take my training serious, I'm not into short cuts, or the easy way. If I'm not busting my *** to get better or earn something, I dont want anything handed to me.

You say that we as humans take the easy way. I disagree, as I dont think its right to lump everyone into that group. Thats a broad brush you're using. Yes, there are lazy people, BUT, not everyone in the world takes the easy way.

Again, as I said in another post, the point of this thread was to talk about why people take the easy route, esp. if they're serious about training in the arts. IMO, there should be nothing easy about it.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

In Martial Arts there are no short cuts and there is no easy way

Absolutley no easy ways if you want to be good or even decent!!!