How to spar without sustaining major injuries?

[ATC]

The consensus of sociology research and community psychology research says you're wrong.

OK you believe that. Common sense dictates otherwise. I read and hear all the studies and research but they do nothing more than try to fit random shapes all in the same hole. You can't take a junk yard dog and simply place him in a different environment and expect him to adhere to the new environment without some extensive training. And even then not all will adhere. This is the same for people. Your studies are too simpleminded, they don’t go beyond the surface.

 

[granfire]

Still, what is your point?
You know of studies that refute the mentioned above results?

Not trying to be a smartalec, but being curious.

 

[JWLuiza]

OK you believe that. Common sense dictates otherwise. I read and hear all the studies and research but they do nothing more than try to fit random shapes all in the same hole. You can't take a junk yard dog and simply place him in a different environment and expect him to adhere to the new environment without some extensive training. And even then not all will adhere. This is the same for people. Your studies are too simpleminded, they don’t go beyond the surface.

It's amazing how often common sense is wrong. ANd sadly we can't do a RCT to determine this effect, so it will always be a less than ideal study...

I'm just wondering how many journal articles you've read on the subject.

 

[JWLuiza]

OK you believe that. Common sense dictates otherwise. I read and hear all the studies and research but they do nothing more than try to fit random shapes all in the same hole. You can't take a junk yard dog and simply place him in a different environment and expect him to adhere to the new environment without some extensive training. And even then not all will adhere. This is the same for people. Your studies are too simpleminded, they don’t go beyond the surface.

Could you clarify this point?

And just in case you missed it:
Just one study I pulled really quickly. All studies have flaws. Triangulation of research has hit home the same point. Hit google scholar up and see for yourself. Minorities are at greater risk for exposure to violence. It's something that should drive policy when trying to protect people, and it is something I used as a therapist to understand the difference from growing up a white middle class male and counseling a wide diversity of patients. Pull up google scholar and look for yourself.

 

[ATC]

your assessment is sadly false.

At current state of our society race still matters if you are being attacked or not.

Many thing play into that but it still holds true.

Sometimes being Political correct is still being wrong.

Wrong. Only if you are not really understanding what you see. Race does not dictate the situation. Race just happened to be end result. Why one race vs. another has a multitude of factors that determine that. One being that people don't understand just that. It is not because someone is black or Hispanic. It just happens to be that society has dictated these to be the case in the US. Go to some other country and it will be some other race. Even some white races.

As I understand what you are trying to say is that the color is the reason. That is not the case. The color just happened to be the product of what society dictated. If not then every black person everywhere would be a violent, ignorant, killer. And outside the US and in some part of the world where some white people are the poor and oppressed then that would be the case for them as a whole also.

You can't blame the color.

 

[ATC]

Could you clarify this point?

And just in case you missed it:
Just one study I pulled really quickly. All studies have flaws. Triangulation of research has hit home the same point. Hit google scholar up and see for yourself. Minorities are at greater risk for exposure to violence. It's something that should drive policy when trying to protect people, and it is something I used as a therapist to understand the difference from growing up a white middle class male and counseling a wide diversity of patients. Pull up google scholar and look for yourself.

OK, Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible. Based on your studies words, the risk is from minorities. A minority can be any race or color. Now is it the minority or the race that is the problem? Also why is the minority the issue? Is is because of their color or the society that they live in that dictates the problem? Answer those questions and you will do two things. Give you an answer and show your face.

Studies are just that, studies. They don’t explain the why. They just give you simple data. Making sense of the date is another thing. So when you make blanket statements and then hide behind a study, you show your true intelligence.

You see I think racism is nothing more than a lack of intelligence and nothing more. And this is on all sides.

 

[JWLuiza]

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of research methodology as well as the point I am trying to make.

Minorities seem to lack some of the protective factors against experiencing violence (I wonder if you've been assuming that I mean minorities are violent, that is not what I am saying.). Studies like this are necessary; once we see that statistically SES and environment do not explain all the variance, new research avenues are then open to go out and find out why this is. Research and science are always trying to figure out why. One study is never the answer, just another question waiting to happen. Overlapping results, consistent findings, looking at variables....these studies do end up explaining things. Research and statistical analysis are powerful ways of understanding. They are why we know things like homeopathy and abstinance education don't work.

I also am saddened that you might cast aspersions on my intelligence and suggest my view point is racist. Ad hominems aren't really appropriate responses to an argument.

By the way when I was talking about policy decisions, I was talking about programs for minority youth that would afford them more protection against violence.

 

[Bruno@MT]

No, he was not stating that at all. If that was the case then why is he even bothered with martial arts at all. He prefaced his statement with how his brain is his livelihood and then he said he had a problem with the concept of full contact anything, being a white middle class male in a safe neighborhood. There are plenty Mexican, black, Asian, and other middle class males and females living in safe neighborhoods, not to mention that there are plenty of whites also residing in the not so desirable poor or bad neighborhoods also. Not sure why the adjective of white was needed at all. He could have just as well said that he was a middle class citizen living in a safe neighborhood, regardless of the so called statistical mitigating factors. It was just an unnecessary comment no matter how you look at it.

If you really look at what you think he was trying to say he simply had to state that he was an engineer and nothing more. The rest was simply uncalled for.

Plus his statement still applies to anyone doing any job. Not just white engineers. I know plenty of engineers that are not white.

Also the OP of this thread did not sustain a serious injury and simply looks at bumps and brusies as such. A black eye is not a serious injury.

I think you are reading the wrong things into my words, and there is no need to be offended. My statement contained 2 different parts:

1) I depend on my brain and the ability to look at computer screens for my job.
2) Being a white middle class male in a 'safe' job in a 'safe' neighborhood DID have a point in the conversation. I replied to a poster regarding the added value of full contact for self defense. Because of who I am, where I live and what I do, the statistics for my demographic make it unlikely that I will ever be in a situation where the added value of full contact sparring will make be significant.

Ergo, the risk of concussion is much higher than the risk of not doing full contact, and since the consequences of a concussion can be very bad for me because of what I do for a living, I forego full contact but the self defense value of what I do is still much better than doing nothing.

If I was a colored factory worker living in schaerbeek (bad place near brussels) then the consequences of a concussion would not be as serious, and the likelihood of needing the added self defense value imparted by full contact sparring would mean that the numbers work out in favor of doing so.

I really did not mean to offend, but my demographic was important to the point I was making, and I am not the one responsible for the differences between demographics and the likelihood of ending up in violent situations. And if you think I am a racist, then you are really way off.

 

[Bruno@MT]

OK, Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible. Based on your studies words, the risk is from minorities. A minority can be any race or color. Now is it the minority or the race that is the problem? Also why is the minority the issue? Is is because of their color or the society that they live in that dictates the problem? Answer those questions and you will do two things. Give you an answer and show your face.

No, the risk is FOR those minorities.
I don't know about the US, but colored people living in bad places have a higher likelihood of being a victim of acts of aggression.

And I would thank you for not calling me a racist.
I have grown up since with 2 colored adoptive sisters and I have never once considered race or color to be a meaningful factor to judge someone.

Mentioning the crime / victim stats to make my point does not make a me a racist. And I agree that in different countries, the stats might be reversed, or change over time. Being white in south africa for example has a different impact on your risk now than 20 years ago.

In most western countries, being in my demographic means the risks are much lower than being the colored factor worker from schaerbeek. I am not trying to come up with reasons why that is the case. You are right that is a whole can of wojms. It does not change the fact that it does. It does matter when having to weigh risks.

 

[granfire]

OK, Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible. Based on your studies words, the risk is from minorities. A minority can be any race or color. Now is it the minority or the race that is the problem? Also why is the minority the issue? Is is because of their color or the society that they live in that dictates the problem? Answer those questions and you will do two things. Give you an answer and show your face.

Studies are just that, studies. They don’t explain the why. They just give you simple data. Making sense of the date is another thing. So when you make blanket statements and then hide behind a study, you show your true intelligence.

You see I think racism is nothing more than a lack of intelligence and nothing more. And this is on all sides.

I think you are reading things into above studies or the mentioning there of that simply are not there.
You are making this a racial issue when it simply is not. At least not in the way you make it out to be.

As you said, simple data, to fill it with meaning is another story.

Race is not a product of social dynamics. That would be saying a person is black because he/she is poor.

On the other hand, when it is pretty much proven that certain demographics are not likely to become victims of violent crime, how does that make them racist in any shape or form.

Racism is putting people down because of the color of their skin, not noting that such differences exist.

The correlation of who is likely to become a victim does not equal likening them to be the perpetrator.

 

[ATC]

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of research methodology as well as the point I am trying to make.

Minorities seem to lack some of the protective factors against experiencing violence (I wonder if you've been assuming that I mean minorities are violent, that is not what I am saying.). Studies like this are necessary; once we see that statistically SES and environment do not explain all the variance, new research avenues are then open to go out and find out why this is. Research and science are always trying to figure out why. One study is never the answer, just another question waiting to happen. Overlapping results, consistent findings, looking at variables....these studies do end up explaining things. Research and statistical analysis are powerful ways of understanding. They are why we know things like homeopathy and abstinance education don't work.

I also am saddened that you might cast aspersions on my intelligence and suggest my view point is racist. Ad hominems aren't really appropriate responses to an argument.

By the way when I was talking about policy decisions, I was talking about programs for minority youth that would afford them more protection against violence.

Social behaviors have been studied since the beginning of man's time. The studies have clearly defined the issues. The problem is that in order to solve the issues the ones in power need to give up some of that status or power. Not really going to happen.

People in an oppressed economic state unfortunately acclimate to their situation, taking them out of that situation will not change their behaviors overnight, if at all. Not to mention that most of the people closest to them (still in the oppressed situation) will continue to influence their ways. Thus without the other perks of simple life long better economic comforts such as education, said people won't be able to keep or sustain their new found status. But your studies can't tell you that. Only living or being the few that overcame this can you understand this.

I am not saying that studies should not be done. What I am saying is don't look at the studies and draw your conclusions based on simple data that really only states just that, data. There are many reasons why something is, that studies can't explain.

Most social programs don't work. Why? Well because you can’t simply give someone something and then expect them to succeed because of it. Give a poor person a million dollars and they will be broke or dead within 3 years. Why? Because they don't have the life teachings in a million dollar life style, they still think and behave as they were conditioned to be. Why do so many pro ball players go broke after playing ball is over? They make millions over their career, but they don't have the life skills beyond that. Even though they go to college, they are simply a tool for making even more money for someone that has those life skills needed to maintain their status. They are taken care of as long as they can produce. After that they are on their own. Now what? Yes a few do make it out and succeed, and their offspring have a better life and never get to know the other side. They (the offspring’s) tend to not only maybe play ball but become doctors and lawyers or run businesses. This is because their life conditioning is different than their father’s and father’s before them.

Again, the OP that stated he was a white anything, really made no difference, as white happens to be the status elite here in this country. By saying it implies that he believes he is better than those who are not.

 

[ATC]

I think you are reading the wrong things into my words, and there is no need to be offended. My statement contained 2 different parts:

1) I depend on my brain and the ability to look at computer screens for my job.
2) Being a white middle class male in a 'safe' job in a 'safe' neighborhood DID have a point in the conversation. I replied to a poster regarding the added value of full contact for self defense. Because of who I am, where I live and what I do, the statistics for my demographic make it unlikely that I will ever be in a situation where the added value of full contact sparring will make be significant.

Ergo, the risk of concussion is much higher than the risk of not doing full contact, and since the consequences of a concussion can be very bad for me because of what I do for a living, I forego full contact but the self defense value of what I do is still much better than doing nothing.

If I was a colored factory worker living in schaerbeek (bad place near brussels) then the consequences of a concussion would not be as serious, and the likelihood of needing the added self defense value imparted by full contact sparring would mean that the numbers work out in favor of doing so.

I really did not mean to offend, but my demographic was important to the point I was making, and I am not the one responsible for the differences between demographics and the likelihood of ending up in violent situations. And if you think I am a racist, then you are really way off.

Wow!!! Just read what you stated. All I can do is shake my head. Why would it not be as serious? A concussion is a concussion and is serious for anyone regardless of race, color, or economic status. To make the statement you did is laughable. What about a white factory worker living in Schaerbeek? Is the concussion more serious? I wish you a wonderful day, and my god bless.

 

[ATC]

No, the risk is FOR those minorities.
I don't know about the US, but colored people living in bad places have a higher likelihood of being a victim of acts of aggression.

So it is because they are black, not because they are economically oppressed and can't afford to educate themselves? OK you made your point.

And I would thank you for not calling me a racist.
I have grown up since with 2 colored adoptive sisters and I have never once considered race or color to be a meaningful factor to judge someone.

Even black people can be racist against other black people. Many racist don't believe they are.

Mentioning the crime / victim stats to make my point does not make a me a racist. And I agree that in different countries, the stats might be reversed, or change over time. Being white in south africa for example has a different impact on your risk now than 20 years ago.

You did not mention any stats, someone else did. You simply picked a poor choice of words to make a statement.

In most western countries, being in my demographic means the risks are much lower than being the colored factor worker from schaerbeek. I am not trying to come up with reasons why that is the case. You are right that is a whole can of wojms. It does not change the fact that it does. It does matter when having to weigh risks.

There are many colored folks (as you call them) that are also in your same situation.

The problem is that the stats produced by studies are not all inclusive. You cannot just toss out the percentage of people that don't fit in to the studies or stats. But it seems that some of you do. You just make statements that are all inclusive or exclusive. That is just wrong.

 

[ATC]

I think you are reading things into above studies or the mentioning there of that simply are not there.
You are making this a racial issue when it simply is not. At least not in the way you make it out to be.

As you said, simple data, to fill it with meaning is another story.

Ofcourse I am. That is my point exactly.

Race is not a product of social dynamics. That would be saying a person is black because he/she is poor.

Ding ding ding...Now someone that understands what I am saying.

On the other hand, when it is pretty much proven that certain demographics are not likely to become victims of violent crime, how does that make them racist in any shape or form.

Why? It can be any race that lives in that demographic. Just because the majority in that group happens to be one color or another does not mean that it is all inclusive or exclusive. Not every black is bad. Not every white is good. And most in a bad economic situation don't chose to be bad for the simple sake of being bad. They are doing what they feel they have to in order to survive.

Racism is putting people down because of the color of their skin, not noting that such differences exist.

The correlation of who is likely to become a victim does not equal likening them to be the perpetrator.

Read the statement that got this part of the disscussion started again. His statement was very demeaning by context, regardless if he knew it, meant it, or not.

 

[JWLuiza]

The problem is that the stats produced by studies are not all inclusive. You cannot just toss out the percentage of people that don't fit in to the studies or stats. But it seems that some of you do. You just make statements that are all inclusive or exclusive. That is just wrong.

Again, you are showing a very clear misunderstanding of "stats". Stats are not deterministic, they are descriptive. Look up multiple regression, part and partialing of variance, hell just look at a basic stats book. If what you were saying is true, the models wouldn't show a significant coefficient for race when confounders were accounted for. The stats ARE all inclusive.

 

[JWLuiza]

.
Why? It can be any race that lives in that demographic. Just because the majority in that group happens to be one color or another does not mean that it is all inclusive or exclusive. Not every black is bad. Not every white is good. And most in a bad economic situation don't chose to be bad for the simple sake of being bad. They are doing what they feel they have to in order to survive.
Read the statement that got this part of the disscussion started again. His statement was very demeaning by context, regardless if he knew it, meant it, or not.

We are talking about exposure to violence not violent behavior. No one has said all people of any type are good or bad.

 

[ATC]

Again, you are showing a very clear misunderstanding of "stats". Stats are not deterministic, they are descriptive. Look up multiple regression, part and partialing of variance, hell just look at a basic stats book. If what you were saying is true, the models wouldn't show a significant coefficient for race when confounders were accounted for. The stats ARE all inclusive.

Proving my points. If you are simply looking for black and white answers (no pun intended) then use your stats. Everyone fits into a stat one way or another. You are either on one side of the stat or the other. So the stat cannot be all inclusive or exclusive. So if a stat does not say 100%, then people should not word their statements as such.

If you simply study two groups then say 87% of one group vs. 29% of the other group, in a dynamic situation when even the numbers of each group are different, then what do you really have? Where do the 13% of the first group fit, as well as the 71% of the other group? If you simply equal out the number in each group then your stats will change. If you reverse the numbers of the group then your stats again will change.

If you simply looks at the stats without some deductive reasoning, then you will always be scratching your head and never know why. Unless you are dealing with absolutes, stats cannot explain much. Especially when dealing with the dynamics of social environments studies, there are just too many intangible variables.

 

[ATC]

We are talking about exposure to violence not violent behavior. No one has said all people of any type are good or bad.

The two are tied togeather. You can't be exposed to it unless there is violent behavior.

 

[JWLuiza]

If you simply looks at the stats without some deductive reasoning, then you will always be scratching your head and never know why. Unless you are dealing with absolutes, stats cannot explain much. Especially when dealing with the dynamics of social environments studies, there are just too many intangible variables.

WRONG. You are using the term "stats" to mean something it doesn't. Of course at an individual level it feels like stats tell us nothing, but that isn't the case. And I've never implied that stats were absolute.

It's like in poker, if I have pocket Aces and my opponent has pocket queens on a flop of Ace Queen 4 of clubs, statistically I am ahead about 93-7. I can base decisions off this. Doesn't mean I always win, but there is good predictive validity. Same thing in social sciences research. We DO model the intangibles. They come in as confidence intervals and variances. And the great thing about science of any flavor, when the model isn't enough, you do more research and keep trying to figure out the model.

Thinking there are too many intangibles is the type of thinking that gets people thinking that remote prayer, homeopathy, and other things work even when the data shows they don't.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Wow!!! Just read what you stated. All I can do is shake my head. Why would it not be as serious? A concussion is a concussion and is serious for anyone regardless of race, color, or economic status. To make the statement you did is laughable. What about a white factory worker living in Schaerbeek? Is the concussion more serious? I wish you a wonderful day, and my god bless.

Are you intentionally trying to be insulted or what?
MY color indeed does not have anything to do with the seriousness of a concussion, but it does have to do with the chances of me being a victim because that is what crime statistics indicate.

So if I was that factory worker who does not have to look at a computer screen all day (something known to be the potentially problematic after a concussion) then concussion is less of a career risk. Furhermore, if my color and circumstance put me in the higher risk range for violence, then those odds outweigh the risk of concussion.

Why are you intent on picking the worst possible meaning for my words?