Clark Kent
<B>News Bot</B>
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 7,128
- Reaction score
- 6
Complex Systems Theory & The Substrates for Emergence in Kenpo
By Dr. Dave in da house - 09-29-2014 01:46 PM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
Mr. Parker set up a system. Some see it as gospel, sanctified and holy, and any failures to grasp it are the direct effect of a lack of knowledge and commitment on the part of the kenpoka. Others see it as a starting point, which is meant to provide an initial point of reference on the road to a Journey taking us each to a different destination. Still others see it as a poorly constructed facade, with some good stuff at the core (mostly misunderstood to begin with), then layered on with filler. Generally, each lineage puts their own spin on it, suggesting modifications as they go. A few have been brave enough to jettison the mainframe at the front end, and replace it with data that starts at a different beginning, moves through different reference points, then ends in an entirely different place.
My question/proposition, following some background: Mr. Parker used functional analysis -- a statistical technique looking for class correlations between bits of information -- as a starting point for endeavoring to compile a comprehensive, scientific approach to personal combat. When he went through his Psychology coursework, that form of analysis was one of several bleeding edge approaches to analyzing data clumps, and continued to be so for many years, even becoming the foundation for personality profile exams that have set the standards for generations that follow. Let's stay with the Psych thing for a sec. The DSM (Diagnostics and Statistical Manual) of the American Psychiatric Association is a book, put together by a team of top-notch docs. They look at some bunch of data, and define diagnostic criteria for mental illnesses. If some patient X has 5 or more of the following characteristic, behaviors, or issues, then he or she can be said to have mental-health disease Y.
Ideally, this is meant to direct the nature of care: People with disease Y tend to respond better to some class of psychotropic meds, than other groups. So you, as the physician, ought to use that data to guide your prescriptive approach to patient care. Recently, in the face of much criticism, some of the authors of the DSM have come forward to say that it is, in fact, a poor diagnostic tool, because it doesn't actually diagnose. Some disease X takes med Y, because Med Y acts on pathophysiology Z (diminished serotonin, acetylcholine excess, whatever). So, to be TRULY diagnostic, the manual ought to address these underlying physiological measures, and not the visible or behavioral manifestations of them.
In other words, as we get better at gathering and analyzing data, the end results of our processes end us up in different places then where we ended up with older, outdated investigative methods. Now, we could keep trying to fix the old conastoga wagon by adding engines and new low-profile rims, or we can use our analytic skills to ditch the conastoga, and build an X-Plane.
In Complex Systems Theory, every element in a system effects every other element in the system. Newtonian principles of singular causation {A+B --> C } give way to multi-layered maps of a change in one entity, eliciting a rippling set of changes through every other entity in the system. Add to this the concept of 'emergence' -- that the whole is capable of new levels of property and behavior not available to the parts that make it up.
What we get is an opportunity to identify the main substrate-level elements in kenpo that define it in states of virtuosity, then compile those elements base on a set of criteria; criteria that can empower the Emergence of new levels of virtuosity and performance, not hitherto allowed for in the constructs of the prior models of definition, training, and performance. Some have tried this, but to be honest, the end products (using black belt level expert performances as the evaluation criteria) have not met the expectation one might have of a model, driving quantum leaps in kenpo performance.
So. If we are to break out of the current model, and reform and end outcome of virtuosity based on training in skill sets which represent codified substrate-level information packets of kenpo, in such a way that each module drilled on FEEDS and SPURS ON skill elevation in every other module (whether previously trained on, or not yet trained on), which elemental classifications of skill ought to be broken down into sub-categories within the complex system?
If we hit Ctrl+Alt+Del on the standard model, with the expectation that a new model will pop onscreen after the reboot, what key core competencies do all y'all think should be the major and minor training modules that come up?
Substrate-level elements in a complex, inter-relating system, which drive Emergence of new competencies?
D.
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
By Dr. Dave in da house - 09-29-2014 01:46 PM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
Mr. Parker set up a system. Some see it as gospel, sanctified and holy, and any failures to grasp it are the direct effect of a lack of knowledge and commitment on the part of the kenpoka. Others see it as a starting point, which is meant to provide an initial point of reference on the road to a Journey taking us each to a different destination. Still others see it as a poorly constructed facade, with some good stuff at the core (mostly misunderstood to begin with), then layered on with filler. Generally, each lineage puts their own spin on it, suggesting modifications as they go. A few have been brave enough to jettison the mainframe at the front end, and replace it with data that starts at a different beginning, moves through different reference points, then ends in an entirely different place.
My question/proposition, following some background: Mr. Parker used functional analysis -- a statistical technique looking for class correlations between bits of information -- as a starting point for endeavoring to compile a comprehensive, scientific approach to personal combat. When he went through his Psychology coursework, that form of analysis was one of several bleeding edge approaches to analyzing data clumps, and continued to be so for many years, even becoming the foundation for personality profile exams that have set the standards for generations that follow. Let's stay with the Psych thing for a sec. The DSM (Diagnostics and Statistical Manual) of the American Psychiatric Association is a book, put together by a team of top-notch docs. They look at some bunch of data, and define diagnostic criteria for mental illnesses. If some patient X has 5 or more of the following characteristic, behaviors, or issues, then he or she can be said to have mental-health disease Y.
Ideally, this is meant to direct the nature of care: People with disease Y tend to respond better to some class of psychotropic meds, than other groups. So you, as the physician, ought to use that data to guide your prescriptive approach to patient care. Recently, in the face of much criticism, some of the authors of the DSM have come forward to say that it is, in fact, a poor diagnostic tool, because it doesn't actually diagnose. Some disease X takes med Y, because Med Y acts on pathophysiology Z (diminished serotonin, acetylcholine excess, whatever). So, to be TRULY diagnostic, the manual ought to address these underlying physiological measures, and not the visible or behavioral manifestations of them.
In other words, as we get better at gathering and analyzing data, the end results of our processes end us up in different places then where we ended up with older, outdated investigative methods. Now, we could keep trying to fix the old conastoga wagon by adding engines and new low-profile rims, or we can use our analytic skills to ditch the conastoga, and build an X-Plane.
In Complex Systems Theory, every element in a system effects every other element in the system. Newtonian principles of singular causation {A+B --> C } give way to multi-layered maps of a change in one entity, eliciting a rippling set of changes through every other entity in the system. Add to this the concept of 'emergence' -- that the whole is capable of new levels of property and behavior not available to the parts that make it up.
What we get is an opportunity to identify the main substrate-level elements in kenpo that define it in states of virtuosity, then compile those elements base on a set of criteria; criteria that can empower the Emergence of new levels of virtuosity and performance, not hitherto allowed for in the constructs of the prior models of definition, training, and performance. Some have tried this, but to be honest, the end products (using black belt level expert performances as the evaluation criteria) have not met the expectation one might have of a model, driving quantum leaps in kenpo performance.
So. If we are to break out of the current model, and reform and end outcome of virtuosity based on training in skill sets which represent codified substrate-level information packets of kenpo, in such a way that each module drilled on FEEDS and SPURS ON skill elevation in every other module (whether previously trained on, or not yet trained on), which elemental classifications of skill ought to be broken down into sub-categories within the complex system?
If we hit Ctrl+Alt+Del on the standard model, with the expectation that a new model will pop onscreen after the reboot, what key core competencies do all y'all think should be the major and minor training modules that come up?
Substrate-level elements in a complex, inter-relating system, which drive Emergence of new competencies?
D.
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
