Ranks, moving, and life getting in the way?

[lklawson]

It seems like you're conflating the pecking order within a particular rank or peer group, and rank at large.

Actually, my point is that they're different.

..well and that Boxing, despite being massively huge and international, doesn't have formalized rank they way that TKD (for instance) does, and doesn't need it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[dvcochran]

Theory without some sort of application leaves me glassy-eyed, too (except in the confines of a fun discussion, perhaps). And you have a point about folks knowing the "how", but not being able to transfer that knowledge, because they lack the theory (the "why"). Part of what I do in my consulting is teach subject-matter experts (the folks who know how to do the job from experience) how to transfer that knowledge. I also sometimes get to turn them into full-fledged trainers, when the stars align (job opening and the right person when I'm there).

Theory without some sort of application leaves me glassy-eyed, too (except in the confines of a fun discussion, perhaps). And you have a point about folks knowing the "how", but not being able to transfer that knowledge, because they lack the theory (the "why"). Part of what I do in my consulting is teach subject-matter experts (the folks who know how to do the job from experience) how to transfer that knowledge. I also sometimes get to turn them into full-fledged trainers, when the stars align (job opening and the right person when I'm there).

I am certain if I were to attend some of the classes in a nuclear engineering major I would be totally lost in the theory. I would not even be aware of the application(s), what they are and where they exist. The only way to correct this is experience in the application. Steve is a salesman. As such he understands that he doesn't have to know either, the theory or the application. That is a very dangerous thing for his customers to have to deal with.

 

[Steve]

This is where we get back to the part you and I simply din't agree on, concerning the analogy. I think the point you're trying to get to is more analogous to the guy who has managed, but not in the context in question, and very few available managers have, either. But this guy showed skill managing in other contexts, and has mentored folks who worked in similar contexts. And he put in the time to learn about the context, to be able to give some suggestions on nuance that's likely to appear in that context.

But now we're just back to the same question again: what is "application". You still see self-defense as the thing that's being learned, rather than a purpose (and not even the purpose) for the thing being learned.

I have no clue what you're getting at in the first paragraph.

Regarding self defense, I see it as skills being taught and applied in a context.

No, I'm asking more directly. I don't think your prior answer really answered it - or tried - you just basically said, "that's not what I'm saying, and your response proves what I'm saying".

the entire second paragraph of the post. The part you snipped.

I appreciate you tilt toward experience. Can you share your background?
I often have to work with skilled trade people like welders, pipefitters, electricians, etc... Some of the smartest people I know. Most of them can't teach their way out of a paper bag. One, because they have no desire to, and two because teaching is a different skill set. They are very specific in what they do. Can the welder show you how to strike an arc, sure. Can they make you good at it? Nope. That is the skill of a teacher, they can make you good or at least better at a skill or subject. But I would not call them generalist even though what they teach is usually broad.
I had been working for about 15 years before I finished college. I now have two Masters degrees and I cannot over exaggerate how much easier it was being able to understand where and how to apply all the theory I was being taught. I remember looking over at kids who eyes were glazed over, totally lost. They could do the math or figure out the problem but it meant nothing because they had no idea what to do with it. So while I appreciate you favor of experience that does not make a person a teacher or an instructor.

without posting a resume, I've been managing people at various levels for about 20 years. I've been in employee development for most of that, training new employees and managers at all levels. Been in senior management for about 7 years. Over the years, I've trained thousands of employees directly and have been in instructional design for a very long time.

Now regarding your comments, you hit on two things i completely agree with. 1 is that experience can really make training more effective. You bring that to the table and you can fill in gaps of understanding. Context is how information sticks.

Second point you made is that a person needs to be a competent instructor. Absolutely, both are key. Personally, I'd say its like 60% experience and 40% training ability, but the main point is you need both . it is fair to say that I would prioritize experience.

 

[Steve]

Actually, my point is that they're different.

..well and that Boxing, despite being massively huge and international, doesn't have formalized rank they way that TKD (for instance) does, and doesn't need it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

truly you have a dizzying intellect. You seemed to be using yhe terms interchangeably in your last post. As I've said a few times, I saw little in your posts that conflicts with what I was trying to say.

And boxing does have formal ranks where it needs them.

 

[Steve]

Steve is a salesman. As such he understands that he doesn't have to know either, the theory or the application. That is a very dangerous thing for his customers to have to deal with.

lol. What? I'm genuinely flummoxed at how you get that out of what I've written.

 

[lklawson]

truly you have a dizzying intellect. You seemed to be using yhe terms interchangeably in your last post. As I've said a few times, I saw little in your posts that conflicts with what I was trying to say.

And boxing does have formal ranks where it needs them.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing just to argue today. Try me tomorrow. I might feel different then.

 

[Steve]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing just to argue today. Try me tomorrow. I might feel different then.

Good Lord. You're a tough nut. I say I agree with you like 5 times and I'm the one arguing to argue? Haha. Okay.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have no clue what you're getting at in the first paragraph.

Yeah, I re-read it, and can't figure out how to make it clear without adding paragraphs. The gist of it is you and I don't see the analogy the same way, for what appears to be more or less the same reason as with the pilot analogy.

Regarding self defense, I see it as skills being taught and applied in a context.

I know. That's my point. SD is just the context, not the skills. If the skills work, they work in most contexts. Whether they have application to a given context is more situational in the terms of SD (a jab isn't terribly useful against a flying tackle, for instance). The point is to develop skills that - given what evidence is available - are likely to be useful in across a reasonable set of situations. Nobody gets to practice self-defense, though some folks have multiple opportunities to use their skills within that context (which arguably is pretty similar to @drop bear's door work, and less similar to police work).

the entire second paragraph of the post. The part you snipped.

There was no second paragraph to that comment. It was as follows:

Give this a few years and you'll agree that what I'm saying is common sense. I'm confident in that. However, it will take longer if you put your fingers in your ears and stop listening (figuratively speaking of course).

If you mean the second paragraph in your response to me, then that didn't explain it, either - it just explained your reaction to my response. You misread some of my emotion in this, and that's probably on me. I get frustrated on this topic with you, because even when we disagree, we usually seem to understand each other's points, and I feel like we are both missing important bits here. And we don't get along when we try to clarify them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Good Lord. You're a tough nut. I say I agree with you like 5 times and I'm the one arguing to argue? Haha. Okay.

I don't think you're coming across as you intend on this, Steve. Your words and the inferred tone don't seem to line up. Maybe that's what's happening in our discussion, too.

 

[Steve]

I don't think you're coming across as you intend on this, Steve. Your words and the inferred tone don't seem to line up. Maybe that's what's happening in our discussion, too.

possible. I recommend not inferring tone from text. Very unreliable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

possible. I recommend not inferring tone from text. Very unreliable.

I think it's impossible to not read tone - it's internal in how we process when reading. It may be possible to consciously dismiss tone, but then you're guaranteed to miss part of the message in most communication.

 

[dvcochran]

lol. What? I'm genuinely flummoxed at how you get that out of what I've written.

I learned a new word!