Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?

[harlan]

Ahem, ahem...bump.

Nice post today by Rory Miller on 'qualifications' to teach self-defense.

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/05/qualified.html

 

[Steve]

Ahem, ahem...bump.

Nice post today by Rory Miller on 'qualifications' to teach self-defense.

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/05/qualified.html

Hey harlan. First, just curious, but are you Narda? If so, I'm sorry that this thread has gotten under your skin.

Regarding the article, there are a few things that I think are great. First, being aware of one's lack of expertise in an area is important. Expertise is a as much a product of one's environment as it is one's training. Were the USA a much more dangerous place, where random violence was a huge issue and likely to occur at any moment in any neighborhood, we would have many, many more "experts" in self defense. But the reality is that most of us will live our lives largely free of violence. That's just a statistical truth. And so, as a result, we have few "experts".

So, the distinction between being qualified to teach and being an expert is, in my opinion, a good one. I am not suggesting that all Martial Arts schools shut down. Only that they should be more clear about what they are actually teaching. Which leads to the second thing in this article I liked:

But one of the things Dave said, when I hit green belt and started questioning whether this stuff would really work: “I don’t know if jujutsu will work. But I know you. You’re a fighter and you’re adaptable. You’ll make it work.”

This quote hits the nail on the head. Jujutsu is what he was learning. Will it work for self defense? Maybe. If all martial instructors were so honest and self aware, we'd be in great shape, I think.

 

[Steve]

Harlan, thanks for introducing me to this blog. I read the previous post, and unless I'm just not getting it, he reinforces exactly what I've been driving at:

One of the big problems for potential students of self-defense and martial arts is that almost all are naïve consumers. A naïve consumer is one who can’t tell a good product from a bad product. Most people, when it comes to anything related to violence, can’t distinguish knowledge from *********. They simply don’t have a frame of reference.And here’s where it gets interesting, in martial arts: The naivety often doesn’t change. When you get someone truly naïve, they have no truth to compare with what they learn and so whatever they learn becomes, to them, the truth. And they can continue to learn and advance in rank and pass on knowledge and come to believe that they are very high-level practitioners with deep understanding… and their most basic facts are wrong. They have a deep understanding of myths and many are willing to share it (or sell it).
In other endeavors, where success or failure are visible and undeniable, it is hard to stay this naive. In other places stupidity hurts. Not so in many martial arts (and one of the many places where sports arts have the edge).

This is exactly what I'm getting at when someone says, "This technique is good for self defense." Or, "My style is not for sport. It is effective for self defense." How do you know that? The answer, often, is that you don't. Not really. You don't know it. You believe it. And that is naivete.

He goes on to say, "To people who have experience, they sound like first graders trying to explain where babies come from."

 

[Carol]

Harlan, thanks for introducing me to this blog. I read the previous post, and unless I'm just not getting it, he reinforces exactly what I've been driving at:

This is exactly what I'm getting at when someone says, "This technique is good for self defense." Or, "My style is not for sport. It is effective for self defense." How do you know that? The answer, often, is that you don't. Not really. You don't know it. You believe it. And that is naivete.

He goes on to say, "To people who have experience, they sound like first graders trying to explain where babies come from."

So how does one go about breaking that naivete?

Would I have to shoot someone before I would be considered a decent firearms instructor? (Lets hope not!) Would I have to get in a street fight or jump in the octagon to prove my empty-hand skill? How much experience do I need before I can say with authority that a nukite to the eyes or a puter kepala (Silat neck crank) is not an appropriate move for a combative sport application?

I don't necessarily think the number of fights or number of kills is the most important metric to have. When I hear someone mention that, I don't immediately praise Cthulhu for the chance to train with someone so experienced. I wonder if they are telling the truth. I wonder how many of those incidents could have been avoided if the person had a little less to drink that night, or did a better job of avoiding the 3 stupids, or otherwise used a little more common sense.

 

[Steve]

experience is the difference between knowing something and believing something

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rframe]

So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.

Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?

The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.

 

[Steve]

So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.

Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?

The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.

Of course the nature of the experience matters. Experience as a chef won't make someone an expert pilot. Right?

Experience isn't bad or good. It is, however, the difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true.

Can anyone provide an example of when this isn't the case?

What do you guys think of the articles Harlan mentioned?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.

Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?

The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.

not to mention he just might not be the sharpest knife in the block if he seems to get into fights everywhere he goes. When people start going on about how many fights they've been in, unless they work in a field where that might legitimately happen (bouncer, security, LEO, etc.), I really start to wonder: just what the hell is wrong with this guy, that he gets into fights all the time? Is he simply stupid? Is there a screw or two loose somewhere? Is he a sociopath? does he actually seek it out or even provoke it, and if so, what does that say about his sense of morality and ethics?

 

[Steve]

not to mention he just might not be the sharpest knife in the block if he seems to get into fights everywhere he goes. When people start going on about how many fights they've been in, unless they work in a field where that might legitimately happen (bouncer, security, LEO, etc.), I really start to wonder: just what the hell is wrong with this guy, that he gets into fights all the time? Is he simply stupid? Is there a screw or two loose somewhere? Is he a sociopath? does he actually seek it out or even provoke it, and if so, what does that say about his sense of morality and ethics?

I think the bolded part is pretty much where I'd expect to see some relevant experience.

Am I giving you guys the impression that I think that idiots getting into bar fights is the best place to look for relevant experience with self defense? If so, I'm sorry. I don't believe I've ever said it, and if I even implied it, I apologize.

 

[jks9199]

What's an expert? What's a student?

I know a bit about the realities of violence. I've seen and talked to victims. I've used violence as a tool against other people. But there are sides, angles, and things I don't know, as well. I've never had to defend myself against a knife attack. I've only had a couple people seriously try to hit me; I stop most before they even get that far because, professionally, I freakin' cheat. I'll bring a gun to the knife fight -- and friends to any fight. Never been in a gun fight -- and I'll be quite happy if it stays that way.

I hope nothing I've written here has suggested that I know everything. But I have made it a significant element of my personal practice, training, research, and study to understand the use of force, from as many angles as I can. And I question what I'm taught, what I experience, even what I've done successfully.

So... is it possible to learn something well enough to understand and prepare for it without direct experience? Yes. But it's not easy.

 

[Carol]

What's an expert? What's a student?

I know a bit about the realities of violence. I've seen and talked to victims. I've used violence as a tool against other people. But there are sides, angles, and things I don't know, as well. I've never had to defend myself against a knife attack. I've only had a couple people seriously try to hit me; I stop most before they even get that far because, professionally, I freakin' cheat. I'll bring a gun to the knife fight -- and friends to any fight. Never been in a gun fight -- and I'll be quite happy if it stays that way.

I hope nothing I've written here has suggested that I know everything. But I have made it a significant element of my personal practice, training, research, and study to understand the use of force, from as many angles as I can. And I question what I'm taught, what I experience, even what I've done successfully.

So... is it possible to learn something well enough to understand and prepare for it without direct experience? Yes. But it's not easy.

Just curious, how do you address the matter of direct experience with your (non-LE) students?

 

[jks9199]

Just curious, how do you address the matter of direct experience with your (non-LE) students?

Depends. My martial arts students... I teach the system, as it was taught to me. I stress some of the aspects of real violence compared to sparring, as one example. We do some exercises designed to be better representations or teach solid principles for real violence, also.

In a self defense class setting -- it's a completely different approach. In fact, that approach is evolving. Today, I'd probably use more operant conditioning principles in a dedicated self defense class, with the focus being really developing a few reliable responses to broad categories of attacks.

 

[rframe]

It is, however, the difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true. Can anyone provide an example of when this isn't the case?

I've never shot someone with a gun. I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.
I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke. I know for a fact that I can.
I've never broken someones arm with a lock. I know for a fact that I can.
I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force. I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.

 

[Tgace]

I've never shot someone with a gun. I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.
I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke. I know for a fact that I can.
I've never broken someones arm with a lock. I know for a fact that I can.
I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force. I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.

And people with a theoretical knowledge of gunfighting think that one shot kills are common.....and people with a TV grasp of Tasers think one shock will render a person senseless for an hour.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rframe]

And people with a theoretical knowledge of gunfighting think that one shot kills are common.....and people with a TV grasp of Tasers think one shock will render a person senseless for an hour.

I had a friend in high school who shot himself in the head with a .22 once and died.
I have another friend who's a LEO who shot a guy who was high and on a rampage 3 times in the chest and he lived.

Hence, I've never shot someone with a gun. I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them. (not will)

 

[Steve]

I've never shot someone with a gun. I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.

Do you? You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience. From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress. You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.

I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke. I know for a fact that I can.

Same as above, particularly if you are speaking about a duress situation. Does the technique work? That can be practiced and tested in the laboratory of a martial arts school. . You may KNOW that the technique will restrict blood to the brain and put someone to sleep. You KNOW that the technique works. But if you're speaking about using an RNC in a self defense situation, if you haven't done it, you don't know for sure whether YOU will be able to do it. You believe you can, based upon your training. And if your training is solid, you probably can. But you do not know for a fact. You are guessing.

I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force. I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.

This one's a funny one, because it might hurt like crazy... or it might not. I've never worn a cup in almost 8 years of training BJJ, and cups are actually against the rules in IBJJF tournaments.

I have taken many knees to the groin. I will tell you that most don't hurt at all. But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell. I KNOW this because I've experienced it. I don't just believe it to be true.

 

[Steve]

A few posts back, Harlan posted a link to Rory Miller's blog. Would anyone care to comment on the article? Any reactions to my own questions and comments on those articles?

 

[MJS]

So how does one go about breaking that naivete?

Would I have to shoot someone before I would be considered a decent firearms instructor? (Lets hope not!) Would I have to get in a street fight or jump in the octagon to prove my empty-hand skill? How much experience do I need before I can say with authority that a nukite to the eyes or a puter kepala (Silat neck crank) is not an appropriate move for a combative sport application?

I recall reading about as well as hearing from someone, stories of the old Kajukenbo guys going out and getting into fights, to see if what they were creating, was actually going to work. Of course, in todays world, going out and intentionally getting into a fight probably isn't the smartest thing to do..lol. I'm sure everyone's mileage will vary, but I know that during my training time, I've seen more than my share of things that are billed as SD, billed as 'this will work', and needless to say, I was left thinking the complete opposite. I still stand by what I said earlier....IMO, having the RW experience is certainly a huge plus. However, as long as the training, drills, etc, were solid, as I said to Chris, I'd settle for someone who didn't have the background.

I don't necessarily think the number of fights or number of kills is the most important metric to have. When I hear someone mention that, I don't immediately praise Cthulhu for the chance to train with someone so experienced. I wonder if they are telling the truth. I wonder how many of those incidents could have been avoided if the person had a little less to drink that night, or did a better job of avoiding the 3 stupids, or otherwise used a little more common sense.

LOL...you should pop over to KT sometime, and read some of the threads over there. I'm amazed at some folks who seem to get into and have gotten into numerous fights. Sorry, IMO, either these people are just magnets to trouble, they live in a **** area or they just go out looking for issues.

 

[rframe]

Do you? You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience. From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress. You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.

Yes, I do know they work. I understand basic physics, basic anatomy, and my own capabilities such that I know they work.

I understand the logic you are trying to play out, but I disagree with its application to reality.

If we only know if something works after we have done it, then that means even if someone has shot a person, broken someones arm, put them to sleep in an RNC... they still cannot know if that will work next time, too many variables, maybe the next person will be wearing armor, maybe they'll be stronger, maybe the PTSD I experience from shooting and killing someone the last time will prevent me from pulling the trigger next time, maybe they'll know a defense against the RNC I wasn't expecting.... so by that logic we cannot know if our techniques are effective even if we've used them a dozen times before... so we'll never know anything.

By that logic, Monday morning I cannot know the same route I drive every day will get me to work, until I have actually arrived at work. After all there could be unknown hazards in the way.

By that logic, I cannot know that Interstate 90 will take me from Spokane to Seattle if I've never driven it, even though I know how driving a car works and I know how maps work, and other people have successfully done it many times...I've never done it, so I cannot know it works.

By that logic, I cannot know the light switch will work until I flip it, even though I've used it successfully 1,000 times previously.

 

[Tgace]

Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2