Can You Be An Expert?

[drop bear]

Then let's get blunt.

You have a particular perspective which is based in absolutely no grasp of what self defence is, self defence training, or it's differences to simple "fighting". Until you allow yourself to be open to actually listening to what you've been told (numerous times), no amount of explanation would help or get through to you… but the reality is that none of your preconceptions are accurate. You don't know what it is to be a self defence expert. You don't know what it is to "walk the walk" of such a person. You think it's all about fighting. It's not.

As a result, your considering of someone who has "walked the walk" is based in you not knowing what that means… so you miss who actually has. And it really has little to nothing to do with being a crime statistician, outside of the particular arena and context that you (the teacher/expert) are dealing with.

My context is mostly as a security guard dealing with criminals and victims. De-escalating drunks and aggressives. Stopping crimes preventing suicides, responding to break ins,fighting people. And generally doing stuff.

Training with some of the top ring fighters in Australia. Working with some of the top street fighters in the business.

I am more than happy to listen to people who fall outside that particular arena.

But they would still have to demonstrate the have an idea that they know what they are on about. And not just be mysterious.

 

[Chris Parker]

I know your context. I also know how removed it is from self defence. And you have had it explained to you ad nauseam, to continue seems an exercise in futility. There's nothing mysterious here… just answers you won't see.

 

[drop bear]

I know your context. I also know how removed it is from self defence. And you have had it explained to you ad nauseam, to continue seems an exercise in futility. There's nothing mysterious here… just answers you won't see.

It really isn't removed from self defence.

Basically it involves people who don't want to be robbed or raped,bashed or generally treated like dirt. People think self defence they think that kind of thing should be stopped.

You can redefine it all you want. But it does not make you an expert.

Seriously people have to over cook a pretty simple concept. And I don't understand why.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah… as I said, you really don't have the first understanding of what self defence actually is here… nor what being an expert in the field is. But here's the thing… I'm not redefining anything. I'm pointing out that you don't have an accurate grasp/definition yourself. This is not "overcooking" anything either, you realise… simply someone having a firmer and deeper understanding than you do… as it really is a lot more involved than you think.

But, to give you your first clue, your context is almost diametrically opposed to self defence. Figure out why and you might start to see the answers you've already been given.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah… as I said, you really don't have the first understanding of what self defence actually is here… nor what being an expert in the field is. But here's the thing… I'm not redefining anything. I'm pointing out that you don't have an accurate grasp/definition yourself. This is not "overcooking" anything either, you realise… simply someone having a firmer and deeper understanding than you do… as it really is a lot more involved than you think.

But, to give you your first clue, your context is almost diametrically opposed to self defence. Figure out why and you might start to see the answers you've already been given.

I know why. If self defence was a simple concept then you don't get to be an expert anymore.

Provided it is different and more complicated than anybody needs or wants you can bee the keeper of mysterious knowledge.

So self defence becomes something other than the simple idea of not being a victim and everybody with experience in that knows nothing.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Drop Bear,

In regards to self defense and personal protection I would advise that you do some reading.
Here are two books to take a look at:

Facing Violence by Rory Miller

Self Defense: What you need to know, when you need it by Marc MacYoung

 

[drop bear]

Drop Bear,

In regards to self defense and personal protection I would advise that you do some reading.
Here are two books to take a look at:

Facing Violence by Rory Miller

Self Defense: What you need to know, when you need it by Marc MacYoung

What books did Rory and mark read to become experts?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Well Drop Bear,

Rory worked in corrections for years and also headed an extraction team. He has real world personal protection skill sets. As to his reading acumen you will have to ask him.

Marc MacYoung grew up in rougher areas of Los Angeles by all accounts and has lived a life full of violence. Yet again, you will have to ask him what his reading acumen is.

I understand you have experience as a doorman and that is experience of a different kind that is work related. Work related experience is important. Real world violence experience is important. Reading what other people have to say about violence and understanding it is important. Personally, I do not take any one persons experience as the end all be all but instead utilize multiple sources to have a broad picture as well as brining my own personal experience with work related and non-work related violence.

I offered you to read those books so that maybe you could do some reading, be inspired and see a different perspective!

 

[jks9199]

Both will share bibliographies.

But here's the thing... Both will admit that they only know a slice of a huge puzzle. Both also are atypical in that they actually have thought about the whole picture of violencr, rather than simply doing stuff...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

Well Drop Bear,

Rory worked in corrections for years and also headed an extraction team. He has real world personal protection skill sets. As to his reading acumen you will have to ask him.

Marc MacYoung grew up in rougher areas of Los Angeles by all accounts and has lived a life full of violence. Yet again, you will have to ask him what his reading acumen is.

I understand you have experience as a doorman and that is experience of a different kind that is work related. Work related experience is important. Real world violence experience is important. Reading what other people have to say about violence and understanding it is important. Personally, I do not take any one persons experience as the end all be all but instead utilize multiple sources to have a broad picture as well as brining my own personal experience with work related and non-work related violence.

I offered you to read those books so that maybe you could do some reading, be inspired and see a different perspective!

Yeah and taken in a vacuum is good advice. And I will probably get on to them a bit.
(I have read some mark mc young stuff)

Tacked on to this thread and it becomes a whole different matter.

I do have an issue with the well read and under experienced experts. That is my point about overcomplicating self defence.

It seems to purposely be raised to this academic mystery that served no other purpose than to feed egos.

Otherwise information on self defence is all over the place.

Lonely planet for info on scams and travel dangers.

Sales and pick up web sites for de-escalation tactics.

Websites on how to harden you home,how to carry money and stop theft as a business.

All of these quite mundane reference are the most boring but most applicable. Because the concepts overlap.

Eg. Bodyguard work is cool right? But money handling and transfer is a bit boring?

Yet it is the same method. Same route planning same threat stuff.

 

[Steve]

In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense. This was a good one, but ended on a doozy. I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book. I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.

Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.

 

[Tez3]

In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense. This was a good one, but ended on a doozy. I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book. I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.

Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.

Reminded of some very missed posters reading that lot.
Drop Bear will always take the opposite view just for the craic. Arguing on here is meat and drink to him bless him

 

[Steve]

Reminded of some very missed posters reading that lot.
Drop Bear will always take the opposite view just for the craic. Arguing on here is meat and drink to him bless him

I miss some more than others, TBH.

 

[Christopher Adamchek]

do you become an expert in self defense if you never have to use your system ??? **raised eyebrows**
cause if you use your system to avoid potential self defense situations you are still defending yourself

 

[Tez3]

do you become an expert in self defense if you never have to use your system ??? **raised eyebrows**
cause if you use your system to avoid potential self defense situations you are still defending yourself

This is similar to something the police often have with politicians who want to cut crime prevention measures to save money. There are no measurable actions that prove crime prevention campaigns and measures work, you can't count non crimes so often it's thought it's a pointless and expensive effort. You can point out that crime figures may go down but then that's put down to effective active policing not that crime prevention units work.

 

[Steve]

This is similar to something the police often have with politicians who want to cut crime prevention measures to save money. There are no measurable actions that prove crime prevention campaigns and measures work, you can't count non crimes so often it's thought it's a pointless and expensive effort. You can point out that crime figures may go down but then that's put down to effective active policing not that crime prevention units work.

I agree to a point. I mean, with any government effort, there is a relatively predictable arc. They start well funded and well staffed, with a lot of enthusiasm. Politicians tout the results and campaign on the short term success. Over time, the money is diverted, the staff dwindles, the program enthusiasm flags, and the effectiveness of the program wanes. Politicians tout the government waste and campaign on promises to revamp or eliminate the program and start something new.

This is a common and sadly effective political tactic. The key, as you say, is to look at crime figures and broader data, and not get tricked or tripped up by anecdotes. Said another way, a crime prevention campaign may be very effective, though some folks can still point to being mugged and argue that it didn't work for them in that moment.

I don't think it's like self defense, though, because self defense results are inherently anecdotal. There is no data. There is no broader starting point where you point to objective data and say, "here is a problem that we are going to try and fix." And that is a breeding ground for unscrupulous people with questionable experience to make a living.

And where there is objective data and a specific goal, in the one example I've been able to find over the years, it doesn't look like you might expect. It's a relatively short, data driven program that emphasizes habits and behaviors, taught by people who have relevant expertise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.

Steve said:



To which Chris replied:



So, what does everyone think? Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience? Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance. Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation? If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off. Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary. But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important. Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on? How about the pilot flying the plane you're on? I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.

I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.

It really depends how you phrase the subject of the expertise. To be an expert in self-defense, someone needs (in my opinion) to defend themselves a lot. To be an expert in teaching people to defend themselves, someone needs experience teaching that set of skills (which set is defined by how we define "self-defense", so can vary) with a track record of success. Defining "a track record of success" is difficult, since there's no reasonable way to measure self-defense oritented skills in the self-defense context. If I teach a bunch of guys who use their skills on the job (prison guard, bouncer, whatever), how can we know my teaching is what made them so effective? We can ask them about some of the interactions and what they used of their training, but even if they actually used some of those techniques and strategies, we can't know what the outcome would have been without them.

So, it's difficult for me to see anyone as an "expert" in this area. I teach with a self-defense orientation, but I don't teach "self-defense" - I teach skills that can be used for that purpose, but it's not the same thing (I don't think "self-defense" is a teaching topic, at all). Those skills are mostly methods for controlling, escaping, or ending physical conflict. I'm good at most of them, in the contexts I've managed to try them out (both normal training and sparring, as well as sparring with folks from outside my training group). Some of my students have opportunities to use them far more often than me (occupational hazards), and they tend to stick around longer than folks who don't, and report getting good results with what they use. But that's back to my prior caveat.

So I don't claim expertise in anything but the principles of what I teach. I'm really good at the principles and the technical bits, because I love working with that stuff.

Then we get to the term "authority". I think someone can be an authority on SD without any experience in actually defeniding themselves. They could do that by doing research (either original or survey of research) to gain information at a high enough level. But that person is an academic authority. I think anyone teaching with a SD orientation should be something of an authority on the topic. They should look at what evidence there is (it's not as much as we'd like) and deliver what actual information they can find to their students. There's far too much non-academic information passed around as if it were based in anything but conjecture, and that does a disservice to anyone learning from those instructors.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.

I agree

 

[drop bear]

In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense. This was a good one, but ended on a doozy. I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book. I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.

Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.

The old "I've done the research" line.

Which has become pretty common since.

so you probably could be an academic expert. But I think you would have to be a real one. Not read the equivalent of a self help book, or watch a heap of world star.

 

[Steve]

It really depends how you phrase the subject of the expertise. To be an expert in self-defense, someone needs (in my opinion) to defend themselves a lot. To be an expert in teaching people to defend themselves, someone needs experience teaching that set of skills (which set is defined by how we define "self-defense", so can vary) with a track record of success. Defining "a track record of success" is difficult, since there's no reasonable way to measure self-defense oritented skills in the self-defense context. If I teach a bunch of guys who use their skills on the job (prison guard, bouncer, whatever), how can we know my teaching is what made them so effective? We can ask them about some of the interactions and what they used of their training, but even if they actually used some of those techniques and strategies, we can't know what the outcome would have been without them.

So, it's difficult for me to see anyone as an "expert" in this area. I teach with a self-defense orientation, but I don't teach "self-defense" - I teach skills that can be used for that purpose, but it's not the same thing (I don't think "self-defense" is a teaching topic, at all). Those skills are mostly methods for controlling, escaping, or ending physical conflict. I'm good at most of them, in the contexts I've managed to try them out (both normal training and sparring, as well as sparring with folks from outside my training group). Some of my students have opportunities to use them far more often than me (occupational hazards), and they tend to stick around longer than folks who don't, and report getting good results with what they use. But that's back to my prior caveat.

So I don't claim expertise in anything but the principles of what I teach. I'm really good at the principles and the technical bits, because I love working with that stuff.

That all works for me.

Then we get to the term "authority". I think someone can be an authority on SD without any experience in actually defeniding themselves. They could do that by doing research (either original or survey of research) to gain information at a high enough level. But that person is an academic authority. I think anyone teaching with a SD orientation should be something of an authority on the topic. They should look at what evidence there is (it's not as much as we'd like) and deliver what actual information they can find to their students. There's far too much non-academic information passed around as if it were based in anything but conjecture, and that does a disservice to anyone learning from those instructors.

This is a very helpful distinction, provided folks don't confuse the issue, thinking they're experts when they are actually authorities.