What am I supposed to say to Drop Bear?

[drop bear]

You essentially assert that, absent the evidence you want, no other evidence is useful. There are plenty of good explanations why sport evidence isn't really good evidence for all contexts, but you don't seem to want to listen to reason on those points. You just want the evidence you want, and to pass off other evidence - like real-life experiences using an art for self-defense - as "stories".

I can though. I bashed dudes bouncing for 20 years. I engaged in mabye thousands of fights. Weapons, gangs dogs. I have eyegouged and head butted and bitten. I saw a guy set on fire. I could if i wanted, Beat posters around the head with my street experience and do it all day.

I don't because it is not evidence.

 

[Tez3]

I have a giraffe, drop bear has the box to keep it in..................

 

[drop bear]

I have a giraffe, drop bear has the box to keep it in..................

Now now conversation isn't sparring.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can though. I bashed dudes bouncing for 20 years. I engaged in mabye thousands of fights. Weapons, gangs dogs. I have eyegouged and head butted and bitten. I saw a guy set on fire. I could if i wanted, Beat posters around the head with my street experience and do it all day.

I don't because it is not evidence.

Actually, it is. It is strong evidence that you are effective. It is equivocal evidence that your training was effective (equivocal, because it's a single case, like any case study evidence). If we looked at others with similar training and found others succeeding with the techniques, methods, and strategies, then we can call that reasonable evidence that the training is effective. I have talked to, trained beside, and taught cops, security officers, and bouncers who have used on the job what I trained in. I've also talked to, trained beside, and taught people who used it to defend themselves.

Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.

You used the term "clinical" earlier. You have repeatedly dismissed this kind of evidence in favor of sport evidence, which is like saying we'll ignore how a drug works on the few people who actually used it to treat a rare condition in their private lives and just look at the evidence from animal testing because it was tested on many more animals in a repeatable manner that everyone can see.

 

[Steve]

Edit... just read the rest of the thread... wow... what a mess. I would have thought a thread like this would be closed within a post or two... surprised the moderators are letting it go. What a crap fest.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, it is. It is strong evidence that you are effective. It is equivocal evidence that your training was effective (equivocal, because it's a single case, like any case study evidence). If we looked at others with similar training and found others succeeding with the techniques, methods, and strategies, then we can call that reasonable evidence that the training is effective. I have talked to, trained beside, and taught cops, security officers, and bouncers who have used on the job what I trained in. I've also talked to, trained beside, and taught people who used it to defend themselves.

Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.

You used the term "clinical" earlier. You have repeatedly dismissed this kind of evidence in favor of sport evidence, which is like saying we'll ignore how a drug works on the few people who actually used it to treat a rare condition in their private lives and just look at the evidence from animal testing because it was tested on many more animals in a repeatable manner that everyone can see.

Because people make stuff up. They often dont even know they are doing it. Confirmation bias.

If you are suggesting this from a medical stand point. You are engaging in the equivalent of the lemon diet.

 

[hoshin1600]

The Tibetan monks have a practice of debate. They believe if you can't provide a good argument about your practice then you don't know the subject well enough yet. What ever your opinion is, you should be able to back it up with a logical argument. If you can't then you do not have a full understanding of the topic. That doesn't mean you win or lose the argument. Some people don't care about truth and it's not your job to change them.

 

[realg7]

Keep your money and use it to pay for a Supporting Membership on MartialTalk. If you are going to insult it's posters you should at least help support the site.



Oh, that's absolutely brilliant! congratulations, it's wonderful news.
Wait until you have been married as long as I have ( 41 years) and the kids have left home to have the petty arguments lol. We do miss you here though, so do pop in now and again, during the night feeds perhaps? Keep well.

Will do maam. Wasn't trying to be insulting. I apologize. I must have misunderstood you. I'm sorry if I took out my own weakness on you.

Peace

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Will do maam. Wasn't trying to be insulting. I apologize. I must have misunderstood you. I'm sorry if I took out my own weakness on you.

Peace

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Just go to the QMs and sign out a sense of humour.

 

[realg7]

Just go to the QMs and sign out a sense of humour.

I'm on it. Thank you for the advice. Doing hubad....lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

hubad

??

 

[realg7]

??

Kali 101 – Hubad

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[KPM]

Edit... just read the rest of the thread... wow... what a mess. I would have thought a thread like this would be closed within a post or two... surprised the moderators are letting it go. What a crap fest.

Uh oh! You said a bad word! NOW the mods might close the thread!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because people make stuff up. They often dont even know they are doing it. Confirmation bias.

If you are suggesting this from a medical stand point. You are engaging in the equivalent of the lemon diet.

Memories are not great. But people don't generally make up major details, and the fact that they have trained in something is, well, a fact. If they happen to remember any of the details of the encounter, that helps. And, yes, all of the feedback has to be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. But that's not the same thing as simply rejecting it because it's not the kind of evidence you WISH it was. That's really the problem you have with it - you want it to be what it's not. I use it for what it is.

I'm sorry that self-defense doesn't handily happen in front of a camera on a regular basis for you. But it doesn't. If you choose to ignore what useful information there is regarding actual self-defense encounters, I can't fix that for you.

 

[Buka]

Martial Artists disagreeing? Nah, say it ain't so!
The posts of unknown people on the internet disagreeing and not getting along? Their words misunderstood? Taking offense even? Hell, no, never! Who ever heard of such a thing?

Hope springs eternal that our arts are taken as passionately as posts seem to be.

 

[Tez3]

I think the OP is a genuine question, its not insulting, it's not demeaning, it' simply asking what exactly can you say to someone who doesn't get what you are saying. Well, what do you say?
it's probably easy enough face to face, where you can judge, unless you have difficulties doing so, body language, tone of voice, facial expressions but when it's the written word it's so much more difficult. Many people as we've seen project their own feelings onto another, "wow they are really angry and/or upset", 'gosh this person is being really offensive" etc etc. The truth is much more prosaic, only the person writing knows the emotion the post is written with, so many posts start with the assumption that the other person is 'upset', this never bodes well for a civil conversation. Others start posts with the idea that they are right the other person is necessarily wrong, well often they are but they think they are right too.

Then we get those posters who think something someone said is actually something else. I have a poster on here who thinks I said his kids were on drugs, he's never forgiven me for it and slates me every chance he gets, despite the fact I didn't know he had children and I didn't say they were on drugs ( this has gone on for a few years now lol) so people carrying grudges stir things up, goading others and making sure that things go downhill quickly. Rather spiteful I always think.

Another 'type' is those who tried something for a little while, didn't like it or it didn't work out for them so that they then post at every opportunity that this thing they can't do doesn't work, is rubbish and is all fairy tale stuff thus annoying those who manage to make it work fine quite annoyed. See all threads on kata.

Allied to the above is those who watch videos and think styles they've never tried are rubbish because videos are the gold standard of martial arts and if it doesn't look right on a video it's pants. it doesn't occur to them that the videos are made by numpties and even the people from their own style shake their heads at them. So again this annoys those who make those styles work perfectly well for obvious reasons.

We have too those who are keen to let us know how tough they are, they learnt everything on 'the street', they've been there, done it, got the t shirt and the brain damage to prove it, no-one in a fancy Gi is going to tell them that traditional styles actually work.

We do have traditionalists who argue among themselves of course as well as those who think they know better than a professional ie telling a police officer how the job is done. We have people who really think they have to disagree rather than ignore because saying nothing is the easy way out and letting a myth or misconception stand because it might upset someone is better than having a potential argument. See threads about domestic abuse for examples of this. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable and does cause arguments but better people know what domestic abuse is and how to deal with it than let ignorance cause more victims.

I believe in being honest despite people thinking that honesty is just being argumentative, I will say what I think otherwise why bother? You would not survive long in Yorkshire if you mince your words, you'd be seen as mealy mouthed. 'I spek as I find' is the watch word here. it's a harsh living in this county and people don't have much time for those who babble or bluster, they call a spade a bloody shovel and if thee canna bide it, thee can allus shun mi.

 

[drop bear]

Memories are not great. But people don't generally make up major details, and the fact that they have trained in something is, well, a fact. If they happen to remember any of the details of the encounter, that helps. And, yes, all of the feedback has to be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. But that's not the same thing as simply rejecting it because it's not the kind of evidence you WISH it was. That's really the problem you have with it - you want it to be what it's not. I use it for what it is.

I'm sorry that self-defense doesn't handily happen in front of a camera on a regular basis for you. But it doesn't. If you choose to ignore what useful information there is regarding actual self-defense encounters, I can't fix that for you.

If that was how it works. But it isn't. what we get is more of a collection of urban myths retold as fact.

 

[Tez3]

If that was how it works. But it isn't. what we get is more of a collection of urban myths retold as fact.

Thank you for demonstrating I was correct in my summation of posters.

 

[drop bear]

Thank you for demonstrating I was correct in my summation of posters.

Yeah not really. You don't give people enough credit.

 

[Steve]

Memories are not great. But people don't generally make up major details, and the fact that they have trained in something is, well, a fact. If they happen to remember any of the details of the encounter, that helps. And, yes, all of the feedback has to be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. But that's not the same thing as simply rejecting it because it's not the kind of evidence you WISH it was. That's really the problem you have with it - you want it to be what it's not. I use it for what it is.

I'm sorry that self-defense doesn't handily happen in front of a camera on a regular basis for you. But it doesn't. If you choose to ignore what useful information there is regarding actual self-defense encounters, I can't fix that for you.

Memories, particularly under stress, are typically pretty unreliable. Aren't they? I think cops or lawyers here would know better, but I've read and heard many times that eye witness accounts and people's memories of events can be wildly divergent. Often considered unreliable in court.


It's the idea of probative value. Video has high probative value. Memories are less reliable.