Never done that before

[Gerry Seymour]

Categorizations are only useful if they simplify understanding. If they add layers of convolution they serve no purpose whatsoever, and in fact, work against their intended purpose.

They're useful if they help someone think things through. They need not be universally acceptable to others (because others may not find them as helpful).

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.

Good point, I agree.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the issue is that people assume I'm talking about a training model, when in reality I'm just talking about a way of thinking about things.

Some of that is a difference in how people process information. It's my experience that conceptual people have trouble communicating their ideas to concrete people (it's less problematic in the other direction, usually), because they expect clearer definition (and less ambiguity) than the conceptual person needs.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You're telling me that I'm not detailed enough, because you're critiquing a model you don't fully understand. And rather than trying to understand it better, you just say "it sucks."

I'm not here to give a dissertation on every idea I come up with. Just an idea I came up with. For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow.

First going to address this part, then going back and addressing your model in my next post. I double checked; the post that started this all said

I think you can easily condense weapons into sticks, blades, and flails. Whips, chains, nunchaku, etc. all follow similar principles of movement.

.

First, that's incorrect, which I already addressed. Second, up until this point, you did not even hint that you have a full model for it. The closest that you did was suggest that there could be a debate about whether or not it should be characterized further, but not that you have done so. Do you expect people to know that you are actively leaving out information, and run with that assumption?

As for "Just an idea I came up with. For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow." I don't see how it's a low blow. If I came up with a theory on kicking, and it was crap, I would want you to tell me it's crap. If you did, I wouldn't take it personally, or consider it a low blow, I would think "Hey, this person with a lot of experience in kicking seems to disagree with my idea. Maybe I should take a bit to consider that, and see if my idea needs revising and/or to be thrown out."

Which incidentally, is what I've seen you do in the past. Not sure what's different about this idea, except maybe that we are telling you it should be thrown out, or majorly revised, instead of just tweaked.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category.

As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.

I dunno, I kinda feel like intuition might take over once you’ve got it in your hand.

 

[skribs]

This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category.

As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.

It depends on how you use the model. If you use it as "any weapon I categorized as X uses the same techniques" it's a bad model. If you use it as "I know how to generate power with a club, so I know how to generate power with an ax" then it's a good model.

I agree that if you pick up an ax and think "this is exactly like a stick", that's bad. But if you pick up an ax and think "I could use some of my stick training, since this is basically a stick with a sharp weight on the end", then it will work.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I dunno, I kinda feel like intuition might take over once you’ve got it in your hand.

It should, but there's a chance that will come a bit too late. From my own experience playing with something new, it takes a few swings/stabs/thrusts/strokes/cycles/whatever to get the feel of it. It's in those first few, if you're overconfident in how it feels, that it becomes dangerous for you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?

Turn it around. It still works as a weapon. You just end up using it as a club (which probably falls into his "stick" category). Now turn it back around. You can still use it the same way, it just does some different damage.

So, an axe has some properties that fit into that "stick" category. Some don't, but that's just the kind of ambiguity that comes with most conceptual categorization. So, when training, I can ask, "what is stick-like about this weapon?" It doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the differences.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Like I said earlier, this is the Phylum level of the taxonomy.

• Life - Martial Arts
• Kingdom - Martial Arts Melee Weapons
• Phylum - Stick, Blade, or Flail
• Class - Axe, Hammer, Stick, Polearm
• Order - Eskrima Stick, Tonfa, Staff, Cane, Umbrella
• Family - Quarterstaff, Bo Staff, Jo Staff, Walking Stick
• Genus - Fiberglass Bo Staff, Oak Bo Staff, Bamboo Bo Staff, Alluminum Bo Staff

So now to get to the actual model. I noticed you added the word "melee" into weapons for the kingdoms, which is good, as you did not do that earlier in your posts (not sure if it was always parts of this model).

That said, the issue with this model is still in the phylum. And it's still the same issue: certain weapons either don't fit into any of the options, or they fit into multiple options. Honestly, if you took away the phylum aspect, and started off with the different classes, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I don't 100% agree with it, as the issue will still exist on those smaller levels, but less so. As long as you aren't using it as a training tool it wouldn't be an issue, but you've already stated that you are not.

So the one part of the model that you've been explaining is the part that sucks.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

They're useful if they help someone think things through. They need not be universally acceptable to others (because others may not find them as helpful).

This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?

 

[skribs]

Good point, I agree.

Weapon safety is important. If you do not think so, do not touch weapons until you are responsible enough to take weapon safety seriously.

First going to address this part, then going back and addressing your model in my next post. I double checked; the post that started this all said .

First, that's incorrect, which I already addressed. Second, up until this point, you did not even hint that you have a full model for it. The closest that you did was suggest that there could be a debate about whether or not it should be characterized further, but not that you have done so. Do you expect people to know that you are actively leaving out information, and run with that assumption?

Should I write my entire understanding of martial arts in every post I make? Or should you assume I know more than I'm saying in each post?

As for "Just an idea I came up with. For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow." I don't see how it's a low blow. If I came up with a theory on kicking, and it was crap, I would want you to tell me it's crap. If you did, I wouldn't take it personally, or consider it a low blow, I would think "Hey, this person with a lot of experience in kicking seems to disagree with my idea. Maybe I should take a bit to consider that, and see if my idea needs revising and/or to be thrown out."

I wouldn't do that. I would try to understand your idea and see if there's something I could glean from it, or I would tell you my understanding and why I think my way is better. I wouldn't just tell you that your ideas are garbage. Especially someone with whom I've previously had good discussions with and respect their opinion.

Which incidentally, is what I've seen you do in the past. Not sure what's different about this idea, except maybe that we are telling you it should be thrown out, or majorly revised, instead of just tweaked.

I've only done this when the material supplied is not relevant to the discussion. I'm not disregarding it as bad, I'm disregarding it as irrelevant. For an exaggerated example: if we're arguing between open-hand techniques and closed-fisted techniques, and you start explaining to me what color of sportscar is best, that doesn't matter. Even if I agree with you on your color choice, and even agree which car we'd put it on, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

When I have done so on-topic, I've done my best to follow the guidelines I outlined above. I try to either better understand your position, or explain why my position is better. I don't try to tear down your position, and I don't insult you.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It depends on how you use the model. If you use it as "any weapon I categorized as X uses the same techniques" it's a bad model. If you use it as "I know how to generate power with a club, so I know how to generate power with an ax" then it's a good model.

I agree that if you pick up an ax and think "this is exactly like a stick", that's bad. But if you pick up an ax and think "I could use some of my stick training, since this is basically a stick with a sharp weight on the end", then it will work.

If you teach people that model, some will try to use it that way.

 

[skribs]

This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?

That's one model of group work. We have different models where I work. Are our models wrong because we don't follow your 4 "ormings"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?

That's actually a great example. Because research shows groups don't uniformly go through all of those stages, nor in that order. But it's still a useful model if you understand those limitations, and the fact that not every moment will be properly classified in one of those four stages. A group can actually be in three stages at once (since most groups aren't static, and often have to go back to some of the "forming" activity, which causes some "re-norming", often leading to new "storming"). The problems go well beyond that (including a reasonable argument that the 4th stage should be "performing", which has different implications), but the model has still served well for people looking to do a better job with groups.

Imperfect - even significantly flawed - models can be useful if they're not expected to be more than they are.

 

[skribs]

If you teach people that model, some will try to use it that way.

First off, who said I was teaching this? This is a way I think about them.

Second, even if I did teach it, errors in applying the model do not mean the model is bad. It means it was applied incorrectly. Every training model can be applied wrong, so by this logic all models are wrong.

Third, if I did teach it, I would give more than the one-sentence explanation. I would teach it after I've taught someone how to use a staff, eskrima sticks, and a few other weapons. I would then ask them to find similarities between each of them. I would show them how you could use similar techniques with different kinds of weapons, and ask them to find concepts that the different weapons share. This would be the introduction to how to use improvized weapons, would be to figure out what it has in common with things you've trained with in the past.

I wouldn't just say "go chop wood for an hour, now you can use a bo staff or eskrima sticks."

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Should I write my entire understanding of martial arts in every post I make? Or should you assume I know more than I'm saying in each post?

You should mention the pertinent stuff, especially when the first post suggests that it is all there is to the subject.

I wouldn't do that. I would try to understand your idea and see if there's something I could glean from it, or I would tell you my understanding and why I think my way is better. I wouldn't just tell you that your ideas are garbage. Especially someone with whom I've previously had good discussions with and respect their opinion.

Which is what I tried to do at first. Then you continued with your explanation, and from what you had posted I decided that this particular idea was bad. Note, I'm not saying that about all your ideas (I actually like most of them), but this particular one, this particular aspect of it is bad. And I would want you to do the same for me, if you thought that.

I've only done this when the material supplied is not relevant to the discussion. I'm not disregarding it as bad, I'm disregarding it as irrelevant. For an exaggerated example: if we're arguing between open-hand techniques and closed-fisted techniques, and you start explaining to me what color of sportscar is best, that doesn't matter. Even if I agree with you on your color choice, and even agree which car we'd put it on, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

When I have done so on-topic, I've done my best to follow the guidelines I outlined above. I try to either better understand your position, or explain why my position is better.

Not sure if I wrote that last part well, since this is what I was trying to say. That you normally listen well, discuss, and tweak your ideas when appropriate.

I don't try to tear down your position, and I don't insult you.

Again, if a position, after evaluating it, is harmful, it should be torn down. As for the insulting, I would have to go back and read my posts, but I really don't think I insulted you with any of my statements. Both because I don't like insulting people on here (I will insult ideas, but those aren't people), and because I'm not sure what insult I would say to you. If I did, I'd appreciate if you showed me where I insulted you, so I can either explain what I meant if it wasn't an insult, or apologize if it was.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's one model of group work. We have different models where I work. Are our models wrong because we don't follow your 4 "ormings"?

Not at all. There are plenty of models of it, I just chose a well known one. My point in that was to take a basic model that I assumed gerry would know, as a way to purposefully make the model worse, and explain how making it worse could cause misunderstandings.

 

[skribs]

You should mention the pertinent stuff, especially when the first post suggests that it is all there is to the subject.

You went in with that assumption, and I don't think that assumption ever broke. I feel like this whole time I'm defending that specific statement.

 

[Flying Crane]

Good point, I agree.

@skribs, what are you disagreeing with here?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

First off, who said I was teaching this? This is a way I think about them.

No one did. But I've found that when people categorize things in a way, particularly if they are a teacher, that's going to come out in how they teach.

Second, even if I did teach it, errors in applying the model do not mean the model is bad. It means it was applied incorrectly. Every training model can be applied wrong, so by this logic all models are wrong.

Again, the issue is not in applying the model. It is in one aspect of the model where the information is wrong.

Third, if I did teach it, I would give more than the one-sentence explanation. I would teach it after I've taught someone how to use a staff, eskrima sticks, and a few other weapons. I would then ask them to find similarities between each of them. I would show them how you could use similar techniques with different kinds of weapons, and ask them to find concepts that the different weapons share. This would be the introduction to how to use improvized weapons, would be to figure out what it has in common with things you've trained with in the past.

I wouldn't just say "go chop wood for an hour, now you can use a bo staff or eskrima sticks."

I agree with that method.