The skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one’s own or anyone else’s. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metacomprehension, or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error.
Several lines of research are consistent with the notion that incompetent individuals lack the metacognitive skills necessary for accurate self-assessment. Work on the nature of expertise, for instance, has revealed that novices possess poorer metacognitive skills than do experts. In physics, novices are less accurate than experts in judging the difficulty of physics problems. In chess, novices are less calibrated than experts about how many times they need to see a given chessboard position before they are able to reproduce it correctly. In tennis, novices are less likely than experts to successfully gauge whether specific play attempts were successful.
We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
~ From “Unskilled and Unaware” by Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Learning a martial art is inevitably a process of trial and error. So, to some degree, we are all inventors of our own unique style of martial arts.
Some ambitious individuals choose to go further. Rather than building on the experiential framework provided by a living martial arts expert, these innovators attempt to create a superior new system from first principles.
Is it harmless creative expression, or dangerous folly? How do we distinguish the brilliant martial inventor from the incompetent Kung Fu crackpot? Security expert Bruce Schneier suggests the following approach:
When someone shows me a [new style] by someone I don’t know, my first question is, “What has the designer broken?” Anyone can design a security system that he cannot break. So when someone announces, “Here’s my security system, and I can’t break it,” your first reaction should be, “Who are you?” If he’s someone who has broken dozens of similar systems, his system is worth looking at. If he’s never broken anything, the chance is zero that it will be any good.
I agree with Bruce in theory. In practice, I do not know how to demonstrate that a martial art style has been conclusively broken. What do you think?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Loading ...
14 responses so far ↓
1
Dan Paden
// Sep 6, 2008
I think that the number of people who really have time to thoroughly understand even one old system, let alone several, is very small and that it requires a certain amount of cheek for a person to think he can improve substantially on systems that he very likely doesn’t fully understand in the first place.
I is apparent to me that I will be mining Naihanchi Shodan for information for years to come. Likewise with Sanchin and Seisan.
I told my oldest son not too long ago that though my knowledge of tuite is trifling compared to my instructor’s, it is still enough that had I walked into the Taekwon-do dojangs I once trained in with it, I would have been mistaken for a jujutsuka. In a martial arts world where most knowledge is that superficial, claims of someone, especially someone with less than forty or fifty years of experience, coming up with something genuinely new under the sun generally strike me as overblown.
2
Cobra-Kai
// Sep 6, 2008
every martial artist has his own unique fighting style and u can’t break a martial art because there is nothing to break and if there is we hav’nt broken it yet
3
words twice
// Sep 6, 2008
First you have to define “broken”.
4
Jay L. Gischer
// Sep 6, 2008
Martial arts styles are hard to evaluate this way. Let’s say you can demonstrate a weakness in someone’s skills. Is that necessarily a weakness in the style, or a weakness in the training of that particular individual? Not easy to say.
In addition, every form of training has it’s weaknesses and its strengths. For example, I train Tai Chi and jujitsu. There are many similarities, but one really important difference in the way training is done. I’ve never seen anyone fall down at all in Tai Chi. Some teachers have told me it forms a bad habit, the habit of going to the ground. And many senior jujitsu people will tell you that going to ground is a very bad thing when more than one oppponent is involved. So that’s a sort of weakness.
On the other hand, fights often go to ground despite our best efforts, and jujitsuka are going to be more prepared for that. This is a tradeoff in training strategy, not a system that is “broken”.
5
Chris
// Sep 6, 2008
words twice,
Extending the IT security analogy: a system is “broken” when an attacker, armed with a small amount of knowledge, can overwhelm a defender with a large amount of resources.
Consider, for example, the security-minded homeowner who installs two expensive deadbolts on their front door, but leaves their basement window open. Theirs is a broken system.
6
Rick Matz
// Sep 6, 2008
We practice breakfalls in my Taijiquan class.
7
Thomas
// Sep 6, 2008
If we use the security analogy, a martial arts system’s competency can be translated into efficiency of combat. Of course, this alone brings up problems that depend on where you are under what circumstances. The “broken” style would be the one that fails to another style (with the idea of personalized styles in mind) under these conditions.
In something like MMA, you see similar styles have failed against other similar styles. In the security analogy, these would likely be designers from the same school. All are separate, but learned from the same place and thus have similar weaknesses. Therefore you might even have a larger broken system: the school that produced them.
8
Karate_and_Taiji_student
// Sep 8, 2008
Excellent questions!
A few comments that come to my mind:
- I don’t think efficiency in combat is a good measure of a Martial Arts style. To begin with, you cannot let two styles compete, you can only let students compete who practiced at specific schools who claim to teach/focus on a certain “style”.
- If a student is no good at competing, who is to blame then? The student herself, the teacher, the school or the style?
- “Competing” depends on the rules of the competition. Obviously, someone who practices with a specific set of rules in mind is going to do better at such a competition than someone who practices with different rules. But does that necessarily say something about the Martial Art? Or rather about the rules of the competition?
- In a competition with “truly” no rules, the fighter who wields her gun best is (most likely) going to win. Therefore, is a gun slinger the ultimate Martial Artist?
- If not, why should the gunslinger devote her practice time on less effective techniques like kicking and punching?
- Everybody has different goals in mind, Martial Arts competitions may or may not be among them. However, is learning a Martial Art without sparring really a Martial Art or just some elaborate dance?
- I like the excerpt on the self-assessment a lot. It shows a problem that’s not limited to Martial Arts, but in general to “self-observation”. It is not always easy to find an expert who can tell me exactly what is wrong with my way of doing something. Sometimes I might even refuse to listen. Other times I might be doing things right and the self-proclaimed expert might have the problem of limited self-observation.
9
Dunken Francis
// Sep 11, 2008
Aikido (the art I’ve been ucky enough to be involved in since childhood) is reknowned for people branching out and defining a new style. My feeling is that this is mainly due to a mixture of ego (in that they need to be regonized) and fear of ‘not-being’good-enough”. If you are the “head” of a style, you are by definition the best at it. My admiration and respect more often goes out to sensei in remote locations, that toil away running sometimes small organisations, dutifully studying their chosen art,.
10
Jonathan E. Kiser
// Sep 11, 2008
I think you ask very valid questions and present mature attitude about what it would take to develop a “new style” or “system” of martial arts. As far as the “what have you broken” analogy goes I certainly agree. I add that one can break another martial artist but an impersonalized entity such as a style or system presents a different problem. Theoretically, if the situation is idea- any martial art style or system can be virtually “unbreakable”. This was what I faced in the developmental stages of the training approach that I promote known as “ICC” or “Integrated Combative Concepts”.
Prior to the inception of the ideas that formed ICC I had 15 years of martial arts experience in multiple systems and multiple instructorship levels. However, I felt a driving need to test the “claims” of these martial arts ranging from Jiu-Jitsu to Kali-Silat. What I did was arrange “friendly get togethers” with martial artist of similar and different systems, including brawlers and braggarts. We all agreed through a liabilt release form to do anything short of putting each other in the hopital or maiming or disfiguring each other. It was as close to any fight I have ever seen and was to par with what I have viewed in many MMA matches. Yikes, we had some very close calls! However, through 5 plus years of formulation I was able to determine with the aid of my trusty staff what was universally applicable and what required overly exact timing or too special of a set up to be practical. I was blown away at what was touted in these systems to be expressly effective when all of our fights showed them marginally applicable at best. What works best is what is simple and easliy ingrained into one’s skill set or toolbox.
Yes and No, I created nothing new- I discovered some pretty new stuff- things I haven’t seen in all my training. I ahve even went to very advanced teachers of different systems and couldn’t get the same results from my “live hands-on enlightenment” training. I admit all martial arts have something of great value to offer. The point is this, each martial art has specialties, no any one art specializes in everything. It is up to us to fill in the spots. This is close to JKD but also beyond JKD. I am not going to follow a drill, pattern, idea, or technique (no matter how cool it looks) unless I can pressure test it and discover what it can do for me. What works for me may not work for you. However, there are certain universal combat motions if applied correctly and trained correctly can virtually work for anybody (provided they have the mind-body connection to do so). In ICC we focus on these UCM’s because “You See EM” in almost any altercation between skilled and unskilled opponents. We amplify these abilities. If that is a new system then so be it..if not so what..as long as it works!
11
Human to God
// Oct 15, 2008
There are only proficient students in martial arts.
As long as they study the common basic principles which are the basis for all martial arts.
This is from a lifestyle training point of view.
Mainly because the best martial artist wins without actually having to physically defeat their opponent.
However in regarding, UFC/Pride fights, normal tourney fights, other full contact fights, and actual ‘fight club style’ fights(which I participated in from ages 16-25… and probably annually now because with my jobs , some injuries might stop me from working) there are certain principles that work better depending on the rules and pace of the particular fight.
Weight classes, targets, restricted techniques and similar require a fighter to developed refined skills in certain areas.
Grappling isnt really needed in point scoring competitions.
But a lot of the MMA guys dominate with it in the octagon.
In the open fights I participated in, it was hard to predict who would win. We had a nice good mixture of fighters from different places.
Eventually we had to get attorneys because we did get some people who talked about lawsuits in case they got injured, but for the most part we just took it instride.
We pretty much allowed anything except weapons, and would stop fights if it seemed like the person would get too badly injured. But I myself obtained several concussions, dislocated joints, broken ribs, elbows, and a kneee break. Some of which I could have avoided by tapping our or giving up, but I actually won many of the matches in which I sustained injuries just because I kept fighting.
Anyway… I have done demonstrations for some associates as far as self defense and have been asked to teach.
I started training at age 10 and now I am 30 years old.
However most of my training was private training in seminars and small groups. Mainly because the local dojos I trained at were good, but did not touch my spirit.
So I have declined on all counts.
Mainly because even though I practice daily and still attend seminars and some classes, I do not feel I will ever qualify to teach anyone.
I thought about gathering things I know together and trying to make a cohesive training regimen. but it did not work because its like certain things cannt be explained in words or just through showing.
Some things have to be grasped by the student.
Anyway.. dont know if I really answered anyone’s questions… just felt like sharing.
12
Tomislav Bazant
// Nov 19, 2008
Greetings! Sorry for my bad english in advance…
I think that style can`t be broken as such. If you got speed and power you can break any opponent with a single punch…that doesnt mean that style is poor. But lets say that every fighter got same speed, same power and same mental ability. If you apply many different styles to these fighters, best style would emerge because best style is the style that uses minimum energy and no movements that counter body`s natural system of movement. That is the best style. I trained Baguazhang Dong style, Bagua Qi gong and Daito Ryu Aiki Ju Jutstu. I also studied some other Wushu practises and efficiency of their movements. I found out that you can use any style if you want to defeat a person that knows nothing of martial arts, but if you want to defeat the master, than you got to have very proficient and economic style and great speed. Every known style has a flaw…thats my conclusion and thats because every style has a flaw in philosophy that was its wellspring. So I decided to create a new, simple style with simple and valid philosophy. I just started. Punch line is…philosophy of my new style is forcing practicioner to move properly and with least perturbations in movements with least amounts of energy used. Everything comes natural, with or without opponent. I will share it with everyone when I create more forms(movement cycles and logics that supports it) and write down principals. So when you ask if you can break a style…the answer is NO! You can only break human body…nothing more. Maybe masters are better learners of new fighting concepts but other side of the coin says that you cant learn old dog a new trick. Like scientists…if everything they now is based on couple of principals and one day someone discovers that they are false, they would have gigantic problem of overcoming that fact…layman wouldnt because they dont have system of knowledge intergrated in their mind. So…lets just wait and see…surprise always come from unexpected directions. Lets not underestimate anyone and maybe we will learn something new.
Best regards,
Tomislav (Croatia)
Martial Arts News 9.7.08 « Striking Thoughts // Sep 7, 2008
[...] Development has a thoughtful post on martial arts inventors vs. Kung Fu crackpots. Rather than building on the experiential framework [...]
James Barton’s Virtuous Science of Self-Defense // Sep 10, 2008
[...] Search ← Read This Before You Invent a New Martial Arts Style [...]
Leave a Comment