Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question

[Gweilo]

We could film it for MT subscribers

 

[drop bear]

Is there a underlying point to this comment

Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive.

While also producing intentionally flawed information.

E.g.. Chinese tai chi. Is a good example.

There is these videos that make it appear that they have real application.

And then of course you put them on a mat with a fighter and they last about ten seconds. Literally the same amount of time as an untrained guy.

 

[Gweilo]

Anyhow 1/4 -to 23.00, got to be up at 04.30, I got to go night nights very soon, so will answer posts tomorrow.

 

[Steve]

In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.

From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

 

[Steve]

Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive.

While also producing intentionally flawed information.

E.g.. Chinese tai chi. Is a good example.

There is these videos that make it appear that they have real application.

And then of course you put them on a mat with a fighter and they last about ten seconds. Literally the same amount of time as an untrained guy.

That evasiveness suggests that the belief in the system isn't sincere. In the video you shared of dowsing, the folks all seemed very confident that they would succeed, and so experienced genuine cognitive dissonance when they didn't. The lengths that some systems go to in order to avoid any objective testing of their skill suggests that, on some level at least, they are concerned about their expected performance. Frankly, if my livelihood was based on my reputation as a guru of street fighting, and my reputation was based on questionable skills, I'd be anxious to avoid testing those skills, too. It's a reasonable response, if not entirely ethical.

 

[drop bear]

From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

Yeah but that is something crazy like dowsing. Not something practical like martial arts.

I mean that works because I have used it.

 

[Christopher Adamchek]

If the goal is ONLY self-defense then ONLY a modern statistic based self defense class should be taken. One that encompass empowerment, situational avoidance, verbal deescalation, psychological profiling, and wild attacks.

Often i hear people taking X martial art for self defense and that should never be done unless self defense isnt the main goal such as for the FITNESS, COMMUNITY, FIGHTING SKILL, and self defense.

 

[Steve]

If the goal is ONLY self-defense then ONLY a modern statistic based self defense class should be taken. One that encompass empowerment, situational avoidance, verbal deescalation, psychological profiling, and wild attacks.
.

One that also encompasses some measurable, data driven results, as well. Right? I'd love to hear about some of those. I'm aware of one self defense program that is truly statistics based, but would love to be able to point to others. Could you share some examples?

 

[Gweilo]

Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive.

While also producing intentionally flawed information.

E.g.. Chinese tai chi. Is a good example.

There is these videos that make it appear that they have real application.

And then of course you put them on a mat with a fighter and they last about ten seconds. Literally the same amount of time as an untrained guy.

In this video, you are using a demonstration of a technique, to quantify your argument(as you regularly do), if real, or in a fight senario, neither would have stood still for that long. Although one would question the weightlifters credentials, because had he dropped his centre of mass to the same level as mr Wangs, he would of been able to do one of your mma/wwf suplex thingys.

 

[drop bear]

In this video, you are using a demonstration of a technique, to quantify your argument(as you regularly do), if real, or in a fight senario, neither would have stood still for that long. Although one would question the weightlifters credentials, because had he dropped his centre of mass to the same level as mr Wangs, he would of been able to do one of your mma/wwf suplex thingys.

They were straight up made up China propaganda pieces.

Which was my point.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

@Gweilo
@drop bear

I have actually nearly been ran over several times, so those do indeed classify as "deadly" situations. So i do indeed have some experence. (TKD at any level would not help you there, you need to learn how to roll and ****)

Now onto proper experience, all i have to say is, if my point is correct, then bringing experience into it is just a fallacy, as my point is correct. (thats not arrogance, it is actually a fallacy to do that)


Also, i love how that persons list necroed this. (havent read entire thread might be another post shortly)

 

[jobo]

That evasiveness suggests that the belief in the system isn't sincere. In the video you shared of dowsing, the folks all seemed very confident that they would succeed, and so experienced genuine cognitive dissonance when they didn't. The lengths that some systems go to in order to avoid any objective testing of their skill suggests that, on some level at least, they are concerned about their expected performance. Frankly, if my livelihood was based on my reputation as a guru of street fighting, and my reputation was based on questionable skills, I'd be anxious to avoid testing those skills, too. It's a reasonable response, if not entirely ethical.

ive point out to him, that his dowsing analogy is no good, but he is so on script it makes no difference

if dowsing doesnt work9(and it probably doesnt)then there only a remote chance it will be successful, . exactly the same odds against no matter how much you have practised

defending yourself against attack is a very different stastical proposition

everyday millions of untrained people successfully defend themselves against attack, with out any specific data its fair to considered that this is just as likely as it is unlikely, so its a 50/50 chance

so if the untrained are running even odds, the trained cant be running worse odds

then if the training has increased their odds by even 5 % they are now in a considerably better position than when they started

my particular estimate is ive increased my odds by 20% , that is im confident of a successful defence against 70 % of the adult male population, if that is anywhere near accurate its a good investment in time, more especially as when i started sorting my self out, long before i returned to lessons ,my physical conditioning was so far below the mean average that i was probably nearer to 20 %

 

[Steve]

ive point out to him, that his dowsing analogy is no good, but he is so on script it makes no difference

if dowsing doesnt work9(and it probably doesnt)then there only a remote chance it will be successful, . exactly the same odds against no matter how much you have practised

defending yourself against attack is a very different stastical proposition

everyday millions of untrained people successfully defend themselves against attack, with out any specific data its fair to considered that this is just as likely as it is unlikely, so its a 50/50 chance

so if the untrained are running even odds, the trained cant be running worse odds

then if the training has increased their odds by even 5 % they are now in a considerably better position than when they started

my particular estimate is ive increased my odds by 20% , that is im confident of a successful defence against 70 % of the adult male population, if that is anywhere near accurate its a good investment in time, more especially as when i started sorting my self out, long before i returned to lessons ,my physical conditioning was so far below the mean average that i was probably nearer to 20 %

It's exactly the same. Because there are techniques for identifying groundwater that are much more accurate. And there are tools and devices that detect humidity and moisture very reliably. So, the idea that one would need to rely on water witching, dowsing, or whatever else you might call it, is more akin to a religious belief than a scientific belief.

There are ways to reliably learn to fight. And there are schools that teach self defense that poo poo these reliable methods. "We don't compete." to me equals dowsing. Regarding self defense, it's a big circle jerk. I've said in the past that the rhetoric around self defense is self serving. From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

Look, here's the bottom line. You are guessing that your odds are increased by 20%. You're pulling these percentages out of your butt, based on what?

All that said, I do appreciate that your physical conditioning is considered, but as I've said in the past, if that's what you're basing this on, you could become as fit or more doing things that don't carry the label "martial arts."

Last quick point, I actually think that folks who are untrained CAN be safer in a fight than someone who believes they are trained when they are not. A guy who trains crossfit but has never been in a fight in his life is going to handle a situation very differently than a guy who trained in ninjutsu and thinks he's got self defense on lock. But, in the end, it's okay. If the ninja gets his *** kicked, it's okay. While there may be a rare crisis of confidence, "what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

 

[jobo]

It's exactly the same. Because there are techniques for identifying groundwater that are much more accurate. And there are tools and devices that detect humidity and moisture very reliably. So, the idea that one would need to rely on water witching, dowsing, or whatever else you might call it, is more akin to a religious belief than a scientific belief.

There are ways to reliably learn to fight. And there are schools that teach self defense that poo poo these reliable methods. "We don't compete." to me equals dowsing. Regarding self defense, it's a big circle jerk. I've said in the past that the rhetoric around self defense is self serving. From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

Look, here's the bottom line. You are guessing that your odds are increased by 20%. You're pulling these percentages out of your butt, based on what?

All that said, I do appreciate that your physical conditioning is considered, but as I've said in the past, if that's what you're basing this on, you could become as fit or more doing things that don't carry the label "martial arts."

Last quick point, I actually think that folks who are untrained CAN be safer in a fight than someone who believes they are trained when they are not. A guy who trains crossfit but has never been in a fight in his life is going to handle a situation very differently than a guy who trained in ninjutsu and thinks he's got self defense on lock. But, in the end, it's okay. If the ninja gets his *** kicked, it's okay. While there may be a rare crisis of confidence, "what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."

based on the fact that thats where i score, slightly above one standard deviation on the distribution of physical ability, that is i can better 69% of the population for fitness then i know karate, so im trained and there likely not, and im likely fitter than them,, both together my odds are probably higher, but il err on the side of caution

but as said the odds of any two individuals selected at random are 50 50, in the absence of any other data it cant get worse than that no matter how badly they train, but your building a straw man with bad training argument

but even with dowsing, if your divining two hectares of land to find a 1 hectare aqua fa its 50 50 if you hit it or not, so its % success is heavily tied to the amount of ground water in any given area


the girl( never mind the guy)who does cross fit may perform better, but thats not a fault with the training, thats the fault of the individual to not keep themselves fit

 

[drop bear]

based on the fact that thats where i score, slightly above one standard deviation on the distribution of physical ability, that is i can better 69% of the population for fitness then i know karate, so im trained and there likely not, and im likely fitter than them,, both together my odds are probably higher, but il err on the side of caution

but as said the odds of any two individuals selected at random are 50 50, in the absence of any other data it cant get worse than that no matter how badly they train, but your building a straw man with bad training argument

but even with dowsing, if your divining two hectares of land to find a 1 hectare aqua fa its 50 50 if you hit it or not, so its % success is heavily tied to the amount of ground water in any given area


the girl( never mind the guy)who does cross fit may perform better, but thats not a fault with the training, thats the fault of the individual to not keep themselves fit

Your odds are still 50/50 by your assessment. They don't increase they don't decrease.

You can't random sample the whole human population and get a 50/50 and then bolster your own stats.

Because your bolstered stats debunks the 50/50 myth.

Or in other words you have rejected reality and substituting your own. Again.

 

[jobo]

Your odds are still 50/50 by your assessment. They don't increase they don't decrease.

You can't random sample the whole human population and get a 50/50 and then bolster your own stats.

Because your bolstered stats debunks the 50/50 myth.

Or in other words you have rejected reality and substituting your own. Again.

ive not sampled the whole population just the adult males in this country and yes, its just as likely than any random attack against a random stranger will be settled 50 50, unless you have some data that supports something else

 

[drop bear]

ive not sampled the whole population just the adult males and yes, its just as likely than any random attack will be settled 50 50, unless you have some data that supports something else

Which you debunked by adding individual data. So now the 50/50 isn't true. Because everyone has individual data.

 

[jobo]

Which you debunked by adding individual data. So now the 50/50 isn't true. Because everyone has individual data.

of course they do, but the only individual data i have is mine, everyone else is completely randomised

how ever you look at most people are by definition average, raise your self above average by one standard deviation and your better than 68% of people. i know you dont do stats but come on,, try average people are more likely to be attack as there more average people than not average and there more likely to be attacked by average people for the same reason

 

[drop bear]

of course they do, but the only individual data i have is mine, everyone else is completely randomised

how ever you look at most people are by definition average, raise your self above average by one standard deviation and your better than 68% of people. i know you dont do stats but come on,, try average people are more likely to be attack as there more average people than not average and there more likely to be attacked by average people for the same reason

Then why haven't you accounted for everyone's individual data?

 

[jobo]

Then why haven't you accounted for everyone's individual data?

because we are talking about populations and as far as those go its a toss of a coin who wins

even my own data is in comparison to the average of the population. most people are more or less the same, thats what distribution curve of human populations tells us, i dont need everybody data to know that