Unpopular Opinion? "It's easier to learn something than to relearn something" is an absolute myth.

[skribs]

People say that it's easier to learn something for the first time, than to relearn it. You see this in regards to bad habits, as well as stylistic differences. The idea that it's easier to fill an empty cup than one that's already full of something else.

However, in my experience, it's easier to change things you've already learned than it is to learn something new. Many students, when they start, they struggle with simple things. Let's use forms as an example. They might step with the wrong leg or turn the wrong direction. They're not even aware of their stance, or what their off-hand is doing.

On the other hand, let's take someone who's been training for a while under one style of forms, and they start to do another. The first style uses a 60/40 wide back stance with a deep bend, where the new style uses a 70/30 narrow back stance with a shallow bend. This person has already written the code in their kinematics for stance width, length, depth, and weight distribution. Instead of learning how to control all of that, they are simply adjusting to new values within those variables.

It's like getting used to writing "2022" on your checks, versus when you first learned how to write checks (or first learned how to write).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think when people say this, they're talking about learning something incorrectly, then having to learn it correctly. That's a very different process from learning one thing correctly, then transferring some of that knowledge to learning something similar - the latter being what's happening with forms, where the principles are somewhat similar.

The principle is that once you've learned to control your stance and leg movement, you can transfer that control to a different stance. Remember that in both cases (new learner and someone learning new forms), they already have some habits about how they stand and move. One of those sets of habits is built on control, strucutre, and movement in forms, while the other is an apparently haphazard (based on how I see some folks move when they start MA) set of habits.

Now, instead, imagine someone making up a form of their own, with no background or knowledge (not even copying Youtube forms). They are putting together movements with no principles behind them, and practicing those. Let them do that for a couple of years, then try to teach them an actual form, next to someone who was taught standard forms (from a different system) for the same period of time, and someone else who has zero experience with forms. All 3 are otherwise similar. It'll usually be easiest to teach the person who learned forms in a different system (though they'll have some conflicting habits from that system, which will slow them down in those areas). Then next will come the person with no experience - they are at an average baseline, and will mostly be learning (not un-learning). The person who made up forms with no principles behind them will have to unlearn every improper balancing, transition, and structure they taught themselves.

 

[skribs]

I think when people say this, they're talking about learning something incorrectly, then having to learn it correctly. That's a very different process from learning one thing correctly, then transferring some of that knowledge to learning something similar - the latter being what's happening with forms, where the principles are somewhat similar.

The principle is that once you've learned to control your stance and leg movement, you can transfer that control to a different stance. Remember that in both cases (new learner and someone learning new forms), they already have some habits about how they stand and move. One of those sets of habits is built on control, strucutre, and movement in forms, while the other is an apparently haphazard (based on how I see some folks move when they start MA) set of habits.

Now, instead, imagine someone making up a form of their own, with no background or knowledge (not even copying Youtube forms). They are putting together movements with no principles behind them, and practicing those. Let them do that for a couple of years, then try to teach them an actual form, next to someone who was taught standard forms (from a different system) for the same period of time, and someone else who has zero experience with forms. All 3 are otherwise similar. It'll usually be easiest to teach the person who learned forms in a different system (though they'll have some conflicting habits from that system, which will slow them down in those areas). Then next will come the person with no experience - they are at an average baseline, and will mostly be learning (not un-learning). The person who made up forms with no principles behind them will have to unlearn every improper balancing, transition, and structure they taught themselves.

The person who learned incorrectly has two possibilities:

1. They never programmed the thing they need to change, so in that regard they are a fresh slate.
2. They programmed the thing they need to change, so they just need to change the parameters.

 

[Steve]

How you teach people makes a big difference.

If you have a concept you're trying to teach, and you are teaching that concept to a beginner, you will probably need to provide a lot of structure to support the concept. As you say, when you teach people who are beginners, they struggle with the simple things. As you start teaching more advanced people, all of that structure can actually get in the way. When you teach unnecessary structure to a more advanced student, they have to reconcile what you're teaching with what they already know, and it slows things down.

Generally, this happens pretty fast, and advanced students just ignore what doesn't apply, but that's an evaluation, which can lead to them ignoring things you're teaching that matter. So, when you say it's easier to fill the empty cup than on that is already full of something else, I think it's just different.

With a beginner, focus on explaining structure, and with a more advanced student, focus on explaining the differences between what they know and what you're teaching them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The person who learned incorrectly has two possibilities:

1. They never programmed the thing they need to change, so in that regard they are a fresh slate.
2. They programmed the thing they need to change, so they just need to change the parameters.

If they learned incorrectly, they have a more ingrained thing to overcome than someone with no (mis)learning. Some incorrect habits are very difficult to unlearn. Imagine someone who taught themselves to use hard tension, because they think that's what creates power. That's not just a change in parameters - they have to learn to do completely the opposite of what they have built neurological pathways to reinforce. The more ways they ingrained that habit, the harder it is to learn to operate in a different way.

If they never actually programmed the thing, there's been no learning, so that's outside the current discussion.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think when people say this, they're talking about learning something incorrectly,

When one teacher teaches you how to punch by "putting arms behind your back - only punch with your body", while another teacher teaches you how to punch by "freeze the body and only punch with your arm", you will have hard time to switch from one to another.

What is incorrectly for one MA system can be correct for other MA system (or the other way around).

If you start from this training that

- bend legs -> straight legs.
- punching arm and back shoulder make a straight line.

you may have problem to switch to this training (or the other way around).

- no bending legs.
- punching arm and back shoulder make a 90 degree angle.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I've always heard it as "It's better to learn something correctly the first than than to unlearn it then learn it again."

I don't think kids have the same trouble that adults have. Kids will learn to put a round peg into a round hole, while adults will sit think about how they are going to make that square peg fit into the round hole.

The only time this isn't a problem is when a person's mind is open to learning and when learning is an experience that someone enjoys.

 

[JowGaWolf]

One of the fixes I've seen used is to tell people "This one way, not the only way." Things are often more readily accepted when they are presented as "another way to do something" Once people start saying that one way is wrong and the other way is correct, then people in general will start digging into their way of doing things and it becomes a mess.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's better to learn something correctly the first than than to unlearn it then learn it again.

What if there is no right or wrong but trade off?

For example,

- 180 degree arm/shoulder punch can give you the longest reach.
- 90 degree arm/shoulder punch can allow your both arms have the same reach.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Once people start saying that one way is wrong and the other way is correct,

A: My dear, could you help me to pick up the tomato that's rolling on the ground?
B: My Taiji teacher told me that I should not bend forward and move my gravity center to be out of my base.

If you train both Chinese wrestling and Taiji, you will have hard time to integrate both.

This is NO NO in Taiji.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When one teacher teaches you how to punch by "putting arms behind your back - only punch with your body", while another teacher teaches you how to punch by "freeze the body and only punch with your arm", you will have hard time to switch from one to another.

What is incorrectly for one MA system can be correct for other MA system (or the other way around).

If you start from this training that

- bend legs -> straight legs.
- punching arm and back shoulder make a straight line.

you may have problem to switch to this training (or the other way around).

- no bending legs.
- punching arm and back shoulder make a 90 degree angle.

I've found very little from one system that is actually incorrect in another, but that may just be the limit of my experience. But yes, if there are actually competing principles, it would create the same issue as the hypothetical bad forms I posited.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What if there is no right or wrong but trade off?

For example,

- 180 degree arm/shoulder punch can give you the longest reach.
- 90 degree arm/shoulder punch can allow your both arms have the same reach.

Trade offs are different. When I think of trade offs I think of things that work in the context of a goal that someone is trying to achieve. I don't think of trade offs as being punching with poor wrist structures versus snapping the elbow when jabbing and as a trade offs. Both are incorrect no matter the system. Both will lead to damage and injury. The only trade off is that you'll either injure your hand or you'll injured your elbow. Worst case scenario is that you'll injure both.

When it comes to the correct way or the wrong way, those 2 realities exists. People may not like to hear it, I know kids don't like to hear it at all and will do whatever they can to prove an adult wrong. Sometimes the kids is the one that is correct, sometimes the adults are correct. Correct and Wrong should be viewed in the context of the goal the person wants to reach. If the person wants to injure their wrist, then punching with poor wrist structure is a good way to accomplish that goal. It's something that works.

With trade offs it's best to pick the right one for for the task and the skill level of the person doing the task.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is NO NO in Taiji.

Yes if you did that in front me, it would be a no no for you but a perfect opportunity to strike you. If you are throwing me, then it's just a trade off, I might be able to counter it by exploiting the weakness if I have time and if I can find it. If it works, then it was correct at that specific time, place, and against the person. who you put into that position.

A: My dear, could you help me to pick up the tomato that's rolling on the ground?
B: My Taiji teacher told me that I should not bend forward and move my gravity center to be out of my base.

These are 2 things in which context must be taken into account. Are you throwing someone or are you picking up a tomato. If you picking up a rolling tomato on the ground then the method in the video may be wrong for picking up a rolling tomato. Maybe you can use it to pick up a tomato that isn't rolling. Probably not an efficient way to pick up a tomato but may be a way to pick up one. I'm serious when I say this because. I have a trash can that I don't open with my hands I use my leg and my foot in the same way that I would do a front kick and I slowly lift the lid of the trash can that way. It's an inefficient way to open the lid but it strengthens my front kick.

 

[hoshin1600]

How about the nature of human personality? It's not just the plasticity of the brain that needs to change. It's also the person's preconceived ideas and axioms. They are usually convinced that their past experiences are better and what your teaching them does not fit into their inner narrative. It often takes a lot of failures on their part to except that there is something to the new idea. The better they are at the old concept the harder it is to convince them to change.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Trade offs are different. When I think of trade offs I think of things that work in the context of a goal that someone is trying to achieve. I don't think of trade offs as being punching with poor wrist structures versus snapping the elbow when jabbing and as a trade offs. Both are incorrect no matter the system. Both will lead to damage and injury. The only trade off is that you'll either injure your hand or you'll injured your elbow. Worst case scenario is that you'll injure both.

When talking about trade off, I'm talking about the principle level and not the technique level.

For example, should you let your body to

1. push/pull your arm?
2. chase your arm?

For

- power generation, 1 is better.
- speed generation, 2 is better.

When you have right side forward, if you want to move forward, will you move your right leading foot first, or will you move your left back foot first?

What's the trade off there?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The better they are at the old concept the harder it is to convince them to change.

Agree! A long fist brother of mine when he started his 1st MA system, his teacher told him, "Never punch with a straight arm". All his life he will punch with bending elbow.

For health reason, he may protect his elbow joint better than everybody else.

 

[Dirty Dog]

People say that it's easier to learn something for the first time, than to relearn it. You see this in regards to bad habits, as well as stylistic differences. The idea that it's easier to fill an empty cup than one that's already full of something else.

However, in my experience, it's easier to change things you've already learned than it is to learn something new. Many students, when they start, they struggle with simple things. Let's use forms as an example. They might step with the wrong leg or turn the wrong direction. They're not even aware of their stance, or what their off-hand is doing.

On the other hand, let's take someone who's been training for a while under one style of forms, and they start to do another. The first style uses a 60/40 wide back stance with a deep bend, where the new style uses a 70/30 narrow back stance with a shallow bend. This person has already written the code in their kinematics for stance width, length, depth, and weight distribution. Instead of learning how to control all of that, they are simply adjusting to new values within those variables.

It's like getting used to writing "2022" on your checks, versus when you first learned how to write checks (or first learned how to write).

Maybe. Sort of.
If we're talking about a physical thing, like your example of forms, how difficult it is depends on a couple things.
A person who has been doing 70/30 for a matter of months or a couple years will find it easier to change than someone who has done 70/30 for 20 years. Muscle memory is a real thing.
The other factor is how big the change is. If you make a fairly big change, your mind basically treats it as learning a new thing. The smaller the change, the more difficult.
And for most people, focus is an issue. Distract them mid-form and watch how fast they go back to the version that is more automatic.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When you have right side forward, if you want to move forward, will you move your right leading foot first, or will you move your left back foot first?

What's the trade off there?

Not sure what you mean since it has to be put in the context of the technique being used.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Not sure what you mean since it has to be put in the context of the technique being used.

May be just a pinch on your opponent's face.

 

[_Simon_]

Yeah I get what you mean. I've experienced both sides strangely enough! When moving to a new style, some movement patterns were SO engrained they were very very difficult to change, and took alot of conscious effort. Yet others which were much larger changes were easy to adopt.

I've always thought that changing old habits is much harder than learning new ones, simply due to the deep neural rut that's been paved over years. But I absolutely see the point you make with there being greater control and foundation in that particular style of body movement, and ability to modify may be greater than a newbie. I have no idea now haha. Maybe it just depends on what is being learned, and how the relative state of conditioning comes in to play.