Can You Be An Expert?

[Steve]

So how many?

How many do you think, ballen? Zero? If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

How many do you think, ballen? Zero? If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

So once is good enough? I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.

 

[Steve]

So once is good enough? I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.

I think that it depends upon the activity, but that it's always more than zero.

Now, to be clear, we cultivate expertise in things we do, and as you said, the issue is one of specificity. What I mean is, if your goal is to be an academic, the experience you would accumulate would be research. However, if your goal is to be an expert in DOING something, you must do that thing.

We see this all the time on the internet. There are guys who know everything there is to know about MMA and BJJ. They can talk about strategy or technique all day long, but after a while, it becomes clear to those of us who actually train that they don't. They are academics, and knowing the steps involved isn't the same as doing those steps.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

I disagree when it comes to self defense there is no routine defend yourself. No two are identical so one time or five its not going to be the same so you need to study many many case files to gain knowledge so your own experience is just one of many and not totally needed. It may make people trust you more because of real life experience but it doesn't make your knowledge that much better

 

[oftheherd1]

The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.
What they have in common is the ability to acquire knowledge of how to handle situations based on the experience of others and apply that knowledge if needed. They don't necessarily have to face every situation personally to be well trained for the event if it occurs. This is systematic learning and is very effective.
I don't see why that approach cannot apply to self defense. The underlying requirement is that the techniques in the system be tested and proven effective by someone who has used them and then diligently taught to students who may or may not have the occasion to use them.
That's also military combat training in a nut shell. Would you expect that someone who had actually used said techniques might be more seasoned and effective? Probably, but that doesn't mean that the techniques that are developed are any less valid when taught to the next student. The glaring difference is that the pilot and surgeon are training in a formalized, reviewed and standardized system of crisis management with a solid foundation in collective experience. How much of martial arts self defense has such a formal "peer reviewed" body of knowledge as the foundation for the techniques that are taught. I suspect that the deficiency lies in a lot of untested material being taught as though it is proven. Without the organized peer review of those individuals who have actually used the techniques as a gold standard, much of what we are taught probably falls under the umbrella of unproven theory.

There's an old saying in the military, that you fight like you train. While personal experience in a stressful and/or dangerous situation is undoubtedly very valuable, if we couldn't learn from other's experience, if we could only learn from personal experience, a lot of people would die or get hurt trying to learn things that would complete a mission and keep them alive. Very wasteful from the military point of view. Doesn't make for happy soldiers either.

When I first joined the US Army, I was in the Airborne Infantry. I don't know what it is now, but then jump school was a rather intense 3 weeks of physical training and training how to make a successful parachute jump. That is done though a lot of repetitious training. It's amazing how much training you can cram into 3 weeks, really 2, since that is the length of ground school.

Considering the consequences of failure, most soldiers invest a lot of mental and physical energy into learning all that is taught (how many MA students can say that?), and learning it well.

I once had what is called a squid. The parachutes suspension lines begin to cross over the parachute (an inversion) but don't make it all the way. If only one suspension line gets stuck, you have two pockets, commonly called a Mae West (after the movie star). In my case multiple lines got stuck on top, forming many small pockets, hence the name squid. They do not form sufficient resistance to slow you down enough to prevent injury when you get to the ground. I was dropping like a rock below those who had jumped with me.

But either one of those scenarios is considered a partial malfunction. We were taught in partial malfunctions to hold our left hand in front of our reserve (to hold in the spring loaded pilot chute), pull the D-handle to activate the reserve, reach in and grab the skirts of the reserve 'chute and raise what part of the skirt we had and flap in out to catch the wind and open so as to immediately begin filling it with air and not get tangled in any part of the main. We were also taught that when we pulled the D-handle out to place it behind the back-pack of our reserve. I guess that was to prevent it from striking someone below.

We all thought it was stupid to take time to do that in an emergency, and swore we never would. But failure to do so in the many practices in jump school resulted in doing some type of immediate calisthenics. Also much more subsequent attention from the jump master instructors than you wanted.

During my malfunction during that jump, after my reserve deployed, I happened to look up (I felt a bumping and heard snapping which was my main pulling out to fully open). Low and behold, there was my reserve D-handle stuck in some of the reserve suspension lines. I have no recollection of putting that handle behind the reserve,

Take that long story for any thing you think may (or may not) apply to the question posed in this thread, and the other answers given.

Did I mention in the military there is a saying you fight like you train?

I believe part of MA training is mental. I believe MA training cannot be complete without it. Part of that mental training is preparing oneself for as many eventualities as possible, and thinking what of your art's training would best work to get one safely out of the situation. YMMV

 

[seasoned]

Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.

Visualization is a terrific training tool. However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application. It does not REPLACE application. Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.

And there are stages beyond application. Competence is application. Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.

Sent from my IPA using Shoptalk HUD

While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.

 

[DennisBreene]

While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.

I have heard similar comments from combat veterans. The training "takes over". Clearly most of us train will full awareness that it is unlikely that we will ever use our training "for real". And since most of us are not facing imminent combat, we probably don't train as if our lives depended on it. But, someday, for a few of us, that moment may occur, and we may really be in peril. I think it's reasonable that the closer we train to reality and the more we maintain an attitude that the training may matter, the more likely that we will survive. It's an imperfect world. Training for a less than 1% possibility, is what we do, among other aspects of our arts. Thinking about what we may face, running scenarios through our minds, playing what if with the techniques to test our limits, are all aspects of preparation. In an area like self defense, just as with the LEO firing his weapon on the job, finding ways to make some form of transition from skilled practice to practiced skill is a challenge. I suspect that if the time ever comes for me, I will be better than if I had never trained. I may still not succeed (a lot of trained marines died in the waters off Normandy Beach in spite of their training), but I am grateful to those who came before me and taught me what they know and challenged me to do it better the next time. And I don't feel that I am any where near an expert, or even skilled in some aspects of defense. I just do what I do and train as best I can, and at the end of the day, I go home and don't spend my hours worrying about the villain lurking behind a bush. The expert is the man who comes in from out of town to render an opinion.

 

[Steve]

I disagree when it comes to self defense there is no routine defend yourself. No two are identical so one time or five its not going to be the same so you need to study many many case files to gain knowledge so your own experience is just one of many and not totally needed. It may make people trust you more because of real life experience but it doesn't make your knowledge that much better

What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained. I agree.

 

[Steve]

While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.

I think that everything you're saying makes perfect sense. I don't know how to say it in a way that is more clear. Nothing you say above is in conflict with anything I've said. Once again, being well trained is the first step toward becoming an expert in something.

There's something else here that's important to remember. Talking about pilots or LEO or nurses or airborne infantry is different than talking about crash landings, CPR, or parachute malfunctions. In the former group, we're talking about a broad skill set. In the latter, we're talking about a specific skill.

In any broad skill set or profession, the experience gained in the core skill set of the profession will be the foundation for success when encountering something outside the norm. For example, an inexperienced pilot will be well trained in emergency procedures. But when US Airways flight 1549 struck a flock of Canadian Geese on take off, don't you think Capt. Sullenberger's 20,000 flight hours and almost 5,000 hours in that specific model aircraft were salient to the successful crash landing?

Here's the real question. Do you guys believe that there's no practical difference between an experienced pilot like Capt. Sullenberger or someone who's logged 20,000 hours in a simulator? If you were thinking about attending a seminar on the realities of handling an in-flight emergency and water landing, would you find a guy who's run all the simulations to be equivalent to someone who's actually done it?

 

[Steve]

I have heard similar comments from combat veterans. The training "takes over". Clearly most of us train will full awareness that it is unlikely that we will ever use our training "for real". And since most of us are not facing imminent combat, we probably don't train as if our lives depended on it. But, someday, for a few of us, that moment may occur, and we may really be in peril. I think it's reasonable that the closer we train to reality and the more we maintain an attitude that the training may matter, the more likely that we will survive. It's an imperfect world. Training for a less than 1% possibility, is what we do, among other aspects of our arts. Thinking about what we may face, running scenarios through our minds, playing what if with the techniques to test our limits, are all aspects of preparation. In an area like self defense, just as with the LEO firing his weapon on the job, finding ways to make some form of transition from skilled practice to practiced skill is a challenge. I suspect that if the time ever comes for me, I will be better than if I had never trained. I may still not succeed (a lot of trained marines died in the waters off Normandy Beach in spite of their training), but I am grateful to those who came before me and taught me what they know and challenged me to do it better the next time. And I don't feel that I am any where near an expert, or even skilled in some aspects of defense. I just do what I do and train as best I can, and at the end of the day, I go home and don't spend my hours worrying about the villain lurking behind a bush. The expert is the man who comes in from out of town to render an opinion.

I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do. In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert? Nothing left for him to learn?

If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement. I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent. But, do you guys really think he's an expert?

On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application. Doing it is "application" level. NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.

 

[ballen0351]

What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained. I agree.

Nope what I'm saying is experience is a bonus but not that important. The best person I ever spoke with on officer safety issues wasn't even a cop. He was an analyst that studied 1000s of officer murders and assaults. He had more knowledge on the topic then anyone I've ever met and he sat behind a desk and has never worn a badge

 

[DennisBreene]

I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do. In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert? Nothing left for him to learn?

Of course not. Are the drill instructors who train them? Probably some are, and some may not be expert; just more trained than the recruits. There is certainly a hierarchy of training and experience at play in training someone to be skilled at almost every endeavor I can imagine.

 

[Steve]

Nope what I'm saying is experience is a bonus but not that important. The best person I ever spoke with on officer safety issues wasn't even a cop. He was an analyst that studied 1000s of officer murders and assaults. He had more knowledge on the topic then anyone I've ever met and he sat behind a desk and has never worn a badge

Sounds to me like he was an expert. You can be an academic. And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise. But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?

 

[Steve]

Of course not. Are the drill instructors who train them? Probably some are, and some may not be expert; just more trained than the recruits.

So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either? But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model. Right? They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.

So, let's apply this to martial arts: Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp. The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts). But he's an expert in the system. What is he teaching you? The system. What are you becoming competent in? The system. And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself. But, you're not a self defense expert. And neither was your instructor.

 

[DennisBreene]

So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either? But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model. Right? They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.

So, let's apply this to martial arts: Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp. The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts). But he's an expert in the system. What is he teaching you? The system. What are you becoming competent in? The system. And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself. But, you're not a self defense expert. And neither was your instructor.

I can agree with that. I suspect we could go round and round as to what would qualify someone as "expert". It may be akin to the supreme court saying that it could not define pornography but would recognize it when it saw it.

 

[Steve]

I can agree with that. I suspect we could go round and round as to what would qualify someone as "expert". It may be akin to the supreme court saying that it could not define pornography but would recognize it when it saw it.

And, there are experts even among the experts. A cardiac surgeon with years of experience is clearly an expert to the lay person. But among cardiac surgeons, I bet there are a few who are looked upon by their peers as an expert resource. On the Bloom's taxonomy model, that's the difference between Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. All are what I would consider varying levels within the range of being an "expert." And it would likely take someone who is at least competent in that field to distinguish between the three. But, once again, they're all beyond simply being competent in their field.

Within every unit, office or group I've ever been a part of, there are people at all ranges of expertise, and within the group it's clear who is whom. But outside of "self defense" training, I can't think of one other example where the alleged experts often have only academic understanding of a practical (i.e. non-academic) skill set.

 

[ballen0351]

Sounds to me like he was an expert. You can be an academic. And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise. But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?

Yes he was an expert. Being an expert and preforming in the field are two different things. Just because I can do the job in the field doesn't make me the expert

 

[ballen0351]

And, there are experts even among the experts. A cardiac surgeon with years of experience is clearly an expert to the lay person. But among cardiac surgeons, I bet there are a few who are looked upon by their peers as an expert resource. Within every unit, office or group I've ever been a part of, there are people at all ranges of expertise, and within the group it's clear who is whom. But outside of "self defense" training, I can't think of one other example where the alleged experts often have only academic understanding of a practical (i.e. non-academic) skill set.

Why do you consider self-defense a non academic skills set. Self defense is 95% mental. The best self defense is being smart enough to avoid trouble to start with

 

[Tgace]

The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.

But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....

Just as devils advocate.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Yes he was an expert. Being an expert and preforming in the field are two different things.

Well, sure they're different. But he was an expert... just not an expert cop. He was an expert analyst. Why? Because that's what he did.

Just because I can do the job in the field doesn't make me the expert

Yes! We're getting somewhere! Doing the job in the field doesn't necessarily make you an expert. Certainly doesn't make you an expert analyst.

Man, seriously. The world would be a MUCH better place if people understood the simple distinction you're making above. Respect people's area of expertise and it makes all the difference. An analyst is an expert analyst. Could he do your job? No. But he can help you do your job better, if that's his area of expertise.