How we learn (and teach)

[rmcrobertson]

"First question: who is speaking? Who, among the totality of speaking individuals, is accorded the right to use this sort of language? Who is qualified to do so? Who derives from it his own special quality, his prestige, and from whom, in return, does he receive if not the asssurance, at least the presumption that what he says is true?"

--Michel Foucault, "The Archaeology of Knowledge."

Among the things deserving of a wary eye remains the attempts that we see, throughout martial arts, to use "science," as one of many assertions of authority with which to close off subsequent discussion. It appears in many forms, not least of which are name-dropping, the citation of peripherally-relevant terms, and the invocation of prestigious institutions such as the Ivy League...sorry, can't remember if I bought the t-shirt or not.

And yes, I doubt you've read the full "Collected Works," and I certainly know I haven't. In point of fact remain skeptical about a good many things--hey, what's your position on "Project for a Scientific Psychology?" if I recall the name correctly--including the claim of, "martial science," in kenpo, as anybody who reads the guff I write should know. I continue to avoid embracing kenpo, largely because those guys smell bad.

Despite the fact that you don't mean, "Chomsky's intangible position," but something like, "Chomsky advanced a claim for which he had no solid proof, that language has both a surface and a deep structure, and that that deep structure is probably, "hardwired," into human beings," I quite agree that the claims of scientific certainty when it comes to learning styles remain well in advance of solid evidence.

So what's the prob, beyond the fact that I tend to be suspicious about extravagant claims whatever they are, and ya don't like the way I write? To confess, however, I tend to respond to your posts in words with more of an edge than I should. It seems to me that you've a habit of bullying with words.

Skepticism is often misread as unlimited doubt. It's actually a refusal to simply believe everything that's said without thought, and without evidence--or to quote a pop source and a good one, too) like Michael Schermer, skeptics are all from Missouri, the "Show Me," state.

We don't sweat the ground yawning beneath us, because the skeptic's attitude is precisely that of the most famous anecdote about Samuel Johnson, the one in which he responded to Berkeley's idealism by kicking a rock.

I'm always glad to correspond with a fellow book loon.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Few would know the reference to deep structure if it bit them in the hiney; congrats (and well summarized...read Korzibsky? (sp)).

Along the lines of "we become those things we fear/dislike the most", I think prejudice raises its head in many guises, including the arrogance of intellectual materialism. I despise it in myself when I see it there (generally keeping my mouth shut lest I insert a foot), and when I think I see it rear its head elsewhere, I find myself tempted to take a stance against it. Hence, my bullying...I interpreted your blanket refusal of anything related to learning style theory as an act of such arrogance; all the more interesting since not much of any research in the humanities ever really proves anything. I, again, apologize for any inappropriate tones I may have taken in my posts...seemed like a good idea at the time.

Many intricate systems are too complex to be submitted to the X -->Y nature of empirical science...at least as the methods for testing such multivariate hypotheses exist today. Nevertheless, these systems exist. Not all hueristic shortcuts are innately evil. To reject the usefulness of a conceptual structure based on the sole fact that it has not yet been "proven"...well, you get it.

As for the Freud thing...well, I know. I wouldn't expect naught but a skeptical response anyway...anything else would be disappointing, in a way.

As for learning styles, I've maintained a position that we are not "visual" or "auditory" learners...we use all channels of perception and processing, all the time. We may develop preferences, which in turn generate preferred methods of idendifying various data in the environment, but the other channels have not magically shut down. Idea worth exploring: Holographic learning. Up-regulating ALL channels of perception and processing to encompass new information experientially, in total.

Anyways, gotta go. Gotta summer cold, and can't wait to sleep.

Tchuss!

D.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

"First question: who is speaking? Who, among the totality of speaking individuals, is accorded the right to use this sort of language? Who is qualified to do so? Who derives from it his own special quality, his prestige, and from whom, in return, does he receive if not the asssurance, at least the presumption that what he says is true?"

--Michel Foucault, "The Archaeology of Knowledge."

Looks to be, in part, a return to the issues of ethos, pathos & logos. I'll have to look it up; might be an interesting read.

Among the things deserving of a wary eye remains the attempts that we see, throughout martial arts, to use "science," as one of many assertions of authority with which to close off subsequent discussion. It appears in many forms, not least of which are name-dropping, the citation of peripherally-relevant terms, and the invocation of prestigious institutions such as the Ivy League...sorry, can't remember if I bought the t-shirt or not.

Love it. You wear sarcasm well. Name-dropping is an interesting innuendo, if it's directed towards me. Particularly since discussing topics without mentioning specifics had led to a number of criticisms in and of itself:
ME: "I had a conversation with an influential thinker in kenpo about the hight costs of cheese in China, and his thoughts were..."
CRITICS: "What's so secret that you can't name who you were talking to? I don't think you've ever had this conversation with anybody in your life, and you're making it up."
...or...
ME: In a discussion about social learning theory and the effects of observed behaviors of others on the choices made by individuals, I talked to this one guy over dinner who spent a lot of time studying this stuff as a profession..."
Omitted are details of who, when, what are the qualifications of this other guy that anyone should give a rats hindquarters about what he thinks, etc. Different effect then if I say, "I was fortunate enough to join a dinner with Robert Cialdini, PhD, a professor of Social Psych at Tempe and entertainingly ground-breaking field researcher, and his thoughts on the subject were..."
Unfortunately, the only solutions -- including providing the details of such interactions -- can be interpreted as name dropping, even when included solely to avert accusations of vague inferences and innuendos. Can't please 'em all.

And yes, I doubt you've read the full "Collected Works," and I certainly know I haven't.

Taken in the context of the excellent Foucault quote at the beginning of your post, I will contemplate the meaning of your doubts while considering the years you and I have known each other intimately.

hey, what's your position on "Project for a Scientific Psychology?"

No such thing. Psych: mind. Ology: study of. While the better researchers have managed to identify methods for studying behavior, and others have identified neurochemical correlates/precursors/by-products of various mental activities, moods, etc., I have yet to see a mind, dissected and laid on a table before me, open to the world for all to see...therefore, it cannot be studied empirically. And any attempts thus far have inherently built into them that whole ""German guys cat-in-a-box" thing. Even the brain imaging research is done in the environment of a brain imaging center, with the brain itself reacting not only to research tasks but to the environment of the center as well. Objective study of a subjective entity = oxymoron. But that's my own take: I expect the vast majority to disagree with me. Psychology will never be science. Doesn't prevent it from being useful, however.

including the claim of, "martial science," in kenpo

Clearly referencing Doc's work, and potentially my recent interest in it. As I mentioned earlier, there is no true science in kenpo..the motions in singular form are too complex to study, much less in combination...one of the reasons I rarely join in on those conversation that rifle off kenpo defs, elaborated on by the pseudo-algebra of motion kenpo catalog codification ("that's quantum fulcrum force borrowing applied to a B1KbC3...you sank my battleship! [just hit the guy, already]). There are some approaches to learning/practicing/teaching kenpo that make more sense -- and generate a better set of working theories, and subsequent applications -- than others. Doc's work has a good deal of Chinese medicine acupuncture meridian theory kneaded into it. As of yet, no one I know has dissected a meridian, and shown it to be a tangible construct. Kind of like minds...doesn't stop us from failing to use them. I have used acupressure work in my practice with noteable results...pressing on points that do NOT correlate with any anatomical structures identified with producing the observed effect. In my mind, pseudo-science...just like psychology, just like NLP, just like a number of other approaches to understanding observable phenomena that lack hard evidentiary support...but are still useful in certain contexts (I still took aspirin, even if I didn't know how it worked...meanwhile, the mechanisms of action for about half the drugs in the PDR remain unidentified; that doesn't detract from their usefulness as remedies for various conditions). The effects of this focus are observable not only on those enculturated to the discipline of practicing with Doc, but on people who have never been exposed to the expected way to respond, causing me to believe there is substantially more to his approach than suggestive influence. But I establish a difference between "proven" and "useable" constructs, reiterating that some constructs are more useable than others. Based on my own subjective experiences, Doc's approach to kenpo is the most comprehensive, useable form I've encountered. It's his gig; he can call it what he likes, and I'll support him all the way because I like the music playing.

Additionally, having had the opportunity to review many basic movements with a renowned PhD in biomechanics (who will remain nameless, so I'm not name-dropping), I know (to the extent one can know such a thing, given exposure, circumstance, and the poor state of hard science for complex kinematics) that most basics in kenpo are performed in a way that is mechanically disadvantageous to the physical body, and compromise the mechanics of force-generating movements. To date, Doc's clarifications are the only ones I've seen that make good sense to me. Does that mean his is the only way, or that only his students will ever succeed in combat? Of course not: I hear stories all the time of guys from arts I percieve as ineffectual emerging victorious from combat. It does mean that, for me, based on my background and experiences, the next big learning chapter in my life for kenpo is best invested in training with Doc. Professional commitments may prevent me from being able to train with him at the level of commitment I desire, but I will always like what I see.

Skepticism is often misread as unlimited doubt. It's actually a refusal to simply believe everything that's said without thought, and without evidence

Something I have an appreciation for, and a reputation among colleagues. Chiropractic is filled with all sorts of quackery and sleight of hand garbage. The actual research in the field is scant, poorly conducted, and remains largely inferential to make any less-than-heinous conclusions...the guys teaching the research methods classes in the Chiro colleges have barely only read an article or two on the differences btw an RCT and case series, and graduates are NOT required to complete any kind of dissertation or research paper (ideally, immersing them in the information evaluation processes associated with lit reviews, study design, data analysis, etc.). As such, notalotta critical thinking going on in my chosen profession. If even 1% of the ridiculous claims I hear from my industry daily were true, there would be no disease, no hunger, and all people in the world could be healed from any disease process simply by muscle testing for the right homeopathic remedy (read: water), or having their 1st cervical vertebrae adjusted precisely. It was not with healthy skepticism that I approached the functional anatomy/biomechanics prof, but flagrant cynicism...the same hypercritical lenses I wear when I visit any martial arts studio, read any book, thesis, or article, or ponder any claims I hear from anyone, anywhere. I got it bad, because I assume everybody has an agenda, and everything out of their mouths emits only to advance it...even if only to undermine the assertions made in support of another parties agenda. Hence my deep distrust of politicians...all of them, on either side of the isle (why I now stay out of the political fora). So, perhaps, I am not the best suited person to point fingers regarding skepticism...throwing stones from glass houses, and all.

I just hate to see flaked arrowheads tossed out before the stone age gets momentum, all because a good study doesn't exist supporting their efficacy over throwing mammoth dung at edible vermin.

We don't sweat the ground yawning beneath us, because the skeptic's attitude is precisely that of the most famous anecdote about Samuel Johnson, the one in which he responded to Berkeley's idealism by kicking a rock.

Either missed that one, or spaced it. Perhaps you'll share.

Regards,

D.

 

[Doc]

NeuroLinguistic Programming. One of the fundamental precepts is the three methods of learning or absorbing data from your model of reality. Great books out there on it and it really does help with your teaching abilities. Look for a few titles by Richard Bandler. There's lots of stuff on the WWW about it.

It started out as a computer study and they found ... Hey! This is like human beings. It's a great tool for psychology and communication, and understanding people's paradigm of reality and how to teach and simply communicate.

Take care,

Dan

Something Parker was doing for years before someone gave it a name.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Something Parker was doing for years before someone gave it a name.

Now, you know I can't help but be curious. What were some of Mr. Parkers early explorations, and how did these express themselves in his training and teaching? Are there shades of it left in kenpo constructs? How did he frame his explorations into the relationship between mind and body, and where did he prefer to go with his explorations as a psychonaut?

As usual,

Dave

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, for, "martial science," I was referencing "Perfect Weapon," inasmuch as I prefer to pull stuff off the easily-available cultural shelf when I post.

The ref to, "Project for a Scientific Psychology," was to a specific title of Freud's. The Foucault ref is to a thirty-year-old book, by a guy named "Rolling Stone College Philosopher of the Year," two years running--it's a question about claims of power--and so on down the line.

The NLP stuff remains pseudo-science.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Avoided perfect weapon after the opening night.

Haven't read Freud's work since the mid-to-late seventies & early eighties (the only books remaining on my shelf since that era are by Jung [Analytic Psych: Theory & Practice...the Tavistock lectures; Memories, Dream, Reflections] and Campbell (The masks of god: Primitive Mythology...only survivor of a 4-book series). I don't keep kenpo SD tech names in my head either, but I can still use them.

Don't read Rolling Stone, but will definitely look up Foucault when time permits.

Of course NLP remains pseudo-science...right along with psych, kinesiology, physiology, pathology, pharmacokinetics, and quantum physics. Still all useful for exploring ideas, and conceptualizating usable phenomena into byte-sized models.

Still wanna know about the rock kicking thing, and where I can read about it.

D.

PS -- since this is a thread about how we learn, what methods, if any, do you use to assist your students with learning and comprehension in MA training? I find it hard to believe such a learned gentleman as yourself really only ever puts it out there for the cream to get, abandoning the rest to their fates of settling to the bottom. I can't help but be curious as to what you actually do to assist them in their information acquisition processes.

 

[Doc]

Now, you know I can't help but be curious. What were some of Mr. Parker’s early explorations, and how did these express themselves in his training and teaching?

Well I don’t know how many knew it but Parker was a Psych major with a minor in Soc. I’m sure he culled many of his approaches from his educational background.

Are there shades of it left in kenpo constructs?

I don’t think it is flourishing in the commercial version of kenpo but I do believe there are some notable instructors of the “genre” if you will, who have elevated their teachings with various teaching mechanisms like NLP.

How did he frame his explorations into the relationship between mind and body, and where did he prefer to go with his explorations as a psychonaut?

He used and referenced the book, “Super Learning” extensively, and for me, it explained his obsession with always having music in the teaching environment. He also “dabbled” into Plyometrics.

For me, he set the standard by concentrating more on the “how” of movement and expressed little desire to spend excessive time on deep discussions of “why.” (Although he would from time to time)

He always said too many “why’s” slowed the process to a crawl, and stressed the importance of limited time to learn “how” to move. He always said “You must be a warrior before you can begin to become a scholar.” Typically today, many students spend so much time on “why,” that they can only talk kenpo. What Parker called “Hypothetical Kenpo.” I often wondered what he would think about “video black belts.” I think I know what he would say.

At any rate, the body has no shortcuts to learning to move, and the proper alignment of its many facets instinctively takes time. “That is where the time must be invested, to get a decent return on a physical Science.” He would say. “Or,” he continued, “you could sit on your butt and study it on paper, and have no time left to learn to move when you finally understand.”

Makes sense to me, but then I’m his student.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I had an early college comm prof who was a big fan of Superlearning, and whole brained learning states (right and left hemispheres working together). In addition to the Superlearning protocols, she introduced each class to Hemi-Sync tapes. You wanna talk about froo? I had read the material from Robert Monroe on Journeys out of the Body, and on how these reported experiences were serendipitous to experiemtns he was conducting, using sound to influence brainwaves in order to induce altered states and whole brain states.

After enough people coming out of the experiments reporting OOB experiences, he switched the focus of his research, individually. Members of his organization, however, continued to experiment with inducing trophotropic (sp?), whole-brained states through the use of binaural sounds & brain wave schmutz (a different steady tone is introduced in each ear, which casues the person hearing the tones to percieve them as one tone, wavering). Combined with the Superlearning material, had a lot of fun cramming massive amounts of material in my head in short periods of time. Could prepare for an exam in hours, instead of days...problem was, retention seemed to be either contextual, or short term. I forget, until I sit through a Hemi-Sync session, then the files open, and I can recall it again. (state-dependent learning?).

D.

And yes, Robert, it's pseudo-science. But its fun, so I'm OK with it.