Schrödinger’s Cat re: Self Defence training

[tmd]

The abridged version of the Schrödinger’s cat principle is:

A cat is placed in a sealed box. The cats state cannot be determined by any other means than opening the box at which point all is known but before that no matter how long as passed you can deliberate that the cat must be dead or alive dependent on such things as time elapsed, air volume, need for sustenance etc but you can never know.

Is this true of self defence training? Sure you can drill it and drill it until you are sure it could work but to know you must use it and risk all consequences.

Is it possible or likely to be able to avoid this scenario? As ultimately we all want to know what we train / train others works.

If not we conclude that it can not be avoided we are also saying a martial arts instructor who has never faced a real life situation cannot teach effective self defense, not sure this is true but how do we know?

[Dent]

Osu!

Great question, TMD! (Have some rep! )

What we're dealing with is likelyhoods (And avoiding likely hoods ). I have used some very specific techniques in fights, and the outcomes have been different, even with the same technique. Why? Because of all the variables in facing different opponents/ time/ place/ additives etc.

So what do we do? Regarding pure SD, I think our best bet is to play the percentages. If we follow the 80/20 rule, then we should practice 20% of our entire syllabus 80% of the time, and the remaining 80%, 20% of the time.

Osu!

[tmd]

Originally Posted by Dent

Osu!

What we're dealing with is likelyhoods (And avoiding likely hoods ).

Now that's funny

Originally Posted by Dent

I have used some very specific techniques in fights, and the outcomes have been different, even with the same technique. Why? Because of all the variables in facing different opponents/ time/ place/ additives etc.

Great! Chaos Theory - you scientist - using a theory to explain another theory

Originally Posted by Dent

Osu!

So what do we do? Regarding pure SD, I think our best bet is to play the percentages. If we follow the 80/20 rule, then we should practice 20% of our entire syllabus 80% of the time, and the remaining 80%, 20% of the time.

Osu!

Like the idea of this - but this is the trap, you know this because you've used some of it, felt the fluidity of a street fight. I bet if I'd asked you 80% of the time what you'd used you'd have had no idea. I had a few rucks in my younger days and to be honest lost a fair few. I know what turned the tables for me was an element of martial training & body building but what really changed was my self belief, belief that came from the training but it couldn't be taught to me I had to develop it myself and experience it - and, like stamina after awhile it can fade if not repeatedly trained and challenged.

[shinobijesus]

this is my favorite subforum on the site. its called "general karate" yet its home to such topics as the heroics of deathmatches with bulls and schrodingers cat parallels.

i dont know what to tell you tmd. it really has been so long since ive been in a street fight. in fact, it was before i even started martial arts in my teens. were something to happen i know i have the capability and knowledge to utilize efficient techniques but the intent is lacking. then again im not sure if thats due to circumstance or willpower....

as for knowing, read some zen philosophy or even just a bunch of quotes out of the beginning of Bruce Lees book. without even diving headfirst into the pool of introspective existential contemplation you will be assailed by quotes and axoms that would indicate none of us ever truly know anything. its all perspective i suppose.

[Dent]

Osu!

Originally Posted by tmd

Great! Chaos Theory - you scientist - using a theory to explain another theory

Like the idea of this - but this is the trap, you know this because you've used some of it, felt the fluidity of a street fight. I bet if I'd asked you 80% of the time what you'd used you'd have had no idea. I had a few rucks in my younger days and to be honest lost a fair few. I know what turned the tables for me was an element of martial training & body building but what really changed was my self belief, belief that came from the training but it couldn't be taught to me I had to develop it myself and experience it - and, like stamina after awhile it can fade if not repeatedly trained and challenged.

No one said that I couldn't cheat!

I'm pretty good at knowing what works for me. The culture I grew up in was far more open about fighting, and I consider myself lucky for it. (My son got sucker-punched in the face in school yesterday, and had to follow the very strict rules for reporting it. Then I had the phone conference with the teacher, and today the official report of the incident was sent home. I chose not to pursue it further, because I don't think it's a big deal, but the other kid is facing an interview with Sister, and an almost certain suspension. Permanent record, blah blah blah... All I know is that this isn't going to resolve the issue between the boys at all.)

Not giving anything away, but I do have a few standby's, and I do practice them more than anything else. I may not be great shakes with spinning kicks, but that's not ideally what I'd use anyway. (Sorry, JCVD )

I know they aren't viewed high regard in the UK, but I joined the Guardian Angels in LA, and they were an excellent testing ground for what works under serious pressure.

Osu!

[seienchin]

Originally Posted by tmd

Is this true of self defence training? Sure you can drill it and drill it until you are sure it could work but to know you must use it and risk all consequences.

I don't think you can ever know anything in advance, mainly because we are not machines, and we are not dealing with machines. If you use something today and it worked, it is not a guarantee that it will work with a different situation or person tomorrow.

that is one of the great challenges of anything involving biological systems (which we are). The degree of variation is almost beyond contemplation.

When I was a junior, my sensei had this amazing SD sequence that he used to teach, where every single technique was a backup in case the one before had not worked. It was a sequence of some 20 things, and what he was doing was drilling into us the certainty that NOTHING would work all the time, and we had to be prepared to continue moving and defending even after we had delivered our "guaranteed to drop '" technique.

So the only thing we can KNOW is that we cannot be certain. And I kind of enjoy that.

[GJEChamberlain]

Osu! tmd

That's an interesting theory.

In practise if you are sticking to simple moves that involve hitting their soft or vulnerable targets with your hard bony bits, you're already in front. (Think forehead to nose, palm strike to chin, knee to groin etc)

Couple this with an aggressive mindset and a willingness to inflict enough pain to break your assailants intent, and you are now pulling ahead.

No-one can guarantee any strike will work, so once contact is made, the determination to keep going is essential. Many people let up on an opponent too early with disastrous results.

Like anything else in life you are plagued with 'what if?' beforehand, but after a few encounters the nerves get replaced by a clearer picture of what's required. Sad to say that this is often the very techniques you do not use in the dojo. (By the time people reach a high grade, they are often working on really complex skills. For SP, stick to the simplest and most brutal stuff you can. It's more reliable under pressure)

This may offend some who prefer to believe high skill levels allow you to control a large psychopathic opponent who wants to ram a glass in your face with a simple flick of the wrist and some fancy hold, but in my experience pain is still the best method of controlling an attacker, especially if they are on something! You just simply can't reason with people like that. It's not like Hollywood where the good guy slaps the bad guy, he agrees to co-operate and they end up talking it through.

The biggest opponent is your own fear. If you can channel that into extra power and think correctly under pressure, you can prevail. "He who hesitates is lost" is as relevant today as ever. If you can't hit the GO switch all the skill and fitness in the world is no better than having a Ferrari without the keys - looks good but gets you nowhere.

Regarding instructors. I would say that they can teach effective SP if they have no practical experience, so long as they accept their limitations, eat a bit of humble pie and learn from those who have experience without embroidering this for their own aggrandizement. If an instructor is lucky enough to have someone in the dojo who has done 'it' for real, (I'm refering to police / prison service / military rather than hitmen) step aside now and again, let them do some (responsible) instructing and keep learning.

Gary

[tmd]

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

as for knowing, read some zen philosophy or even just a bunch of quotes out of the beginning of Bruce Lees book. without even diving headfirst into the pool of introspective existential contemplation you will be assailed by quotes and axoms that would indicate none of us ever truly know anything. its all perspective i suppose.

The whole point of the original experiment was as a counter introspective existential contemplation because all of these lead to assumption.

Originally Posted by GJEChamberlain

Osu! tmd

Regarding instructors. I would say that they can teach effective SP if they have no practical experience, so long as they accept their limitations, eat a bit of humble pie and learn from those who have experience without embroidering this for their own aggrandizement. If an instructor is lucky enough to have someone in the dojo who has done 'it' for real, step aside now and again, let them do some (responsible) instructing and keep learning.

Interested in this as I don't think there is enough humble pie taken by many instructors or enough of them on additional learning courses - I was taking the class a few months back and was showing my fav knife defense, I was acutely aware that behind me stood a 6'2" copper who I remembered had just completed his riot training - so I asked him to show us his favorite too.

[Dent]

Osu!

Originally Posted by GJEChamberlain

but in my experience pain is still the best method of controlling an attacker, especially if they are on something! You just simply can't reason with people like that.

Not to be too unpleasant in our wonderful Forum, but it for me it comes down to damage. In a situation where you are in such grave danger that harm is a real possibility, dehumanizing the attacker/s allows my mind to be free of the restrictions of society. Then I want to damage. I want to damage and damage and damage until there is no more threat.

I don't pretend that this is a civilized response, but under these circumstances, I'm not dealing with civilized people. Treating them as such is a mistake I have made before, and I paid for it.

Never again.

Osu!

[shinobijesus]

Originally Posted by tmd

The whole point of the original experiment was as a counter introspective existential contemplation because all of these lead to assumption.

sorry. i guess im not "getting it" then but ill give it another shot and take a bit more time with my response.

Originally Posted by tmd

Is this true of self defence training? Sure you can drill it and drill it until you are sure it could work but to know you must use it and risk all consequences.

whyd do you have to use it to know? if you kick someones knee out they are going to get hurt. if you use nukite to stab someones eyes into their skull they are going to go blind.

you dont actually have to use something to know its going to work. as far as injuries and damage to the human body you can take the word of the people that teach you the technique. the technique is based on empirical evidence. thats why the technique is being taught today because somewhere, for some reason, someone in the past used it. thats the abridged history of all martial arts. if thats not enough however try the internet. you can research the exact cause/effect relationship of the type of injuries you are trying to inflict. after many centuries of recorded history modern medicine has seen quite a few ways of human beings getting injured.

if ive missed your point again though, what techniques are you wondering about? a lot of self defense techniques are straightforward and lauded as "the best" because they work with consistency...

Originally Posted by tmd

Is it possible or likely to be able to avoid this scenario? As ultimately we all want to know what we train / train others works.

possible but not likely. if im understanding you this time you either mean you want to know if the technique itself works or if the person can apply it. obviously you can research about the damage it would cause without using it so the only way to find out if you could apply it would be to go looking for trouble.

Originally Posted by tmd

If not we conclude that it can not be avoided we are also saying a martial arts instructor who has never faced a real life situation cannot teach effective self defense, not sure this is true but how do we know?

couple things im not clear on. avoid what exactly? uncertainty? that comes with all things in life so no thats not avoidable.

also, what consequences are you talking about when you say "risk all consequences"? this leads me to believe you are contemplating a certain set of techniques in your mind. even if they are just a collage of things you know and you regard them all as "self defense" so you leave the topic vague, my knowledge of self defense techniques doesnt equal yours so try to clarify the techniques youre speaking of please.

ill be back in a couple hours. hopefully i can get some sleep before i have to drive all over the place.

[Dent]

Osu!

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

whyd do you have to use it to know? if you kick someones knee out they are going to get hurt. if you use nukite to stab someones eyes into their skull they are going to go blind.

As a sidebar: I have lashed a knee and gouged an eye with very poor results. The knee I understood, because the angle wasn't great. The eye, well that one still boggles my mind. My thumb was well into the socket, and the guy kept going. I know he was off his head on drugs when I got involved, but he was well beyond what I've encountered before. Only shoving him under water had any effect, and only then because I think he kept breathing.

Osu!

[tmd]

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

sorry. i guess im not "getting it" then but ill give it another shot and take a bit more time with my response.

whyd do you have to use it to know? if you kick someones knee out they are going to get hurt. if you use nukite to stab someones eyes into their skull they are going to go blind.

you dont actually have to use something to know its going to work. as far as injuries and damage to the human body you can take the word of the people that teach you the technique. the technique is based on empirical evidence. thats why the technique is being taught today because somewhere, for some reason, someone in the past used it. thats the abridged history of all martial arts. if thats not enough however try the internet. you can research the exact cause/effect relationship of the type of injuries you are trying to inflict. after many centuries of recorded history modern medicine has seen quite a few ways of human beings getting injured.

if ive missed your point again though, what techniques are you wondering about? a lot of self defense techniques are straightforward and lauded as "the best" because they work with consistency...

I have trained with several people over the years who have achieved, green, brown and even black belts but could not hit for toffee so I disagree that a kick to the knee will always be debilitating for them against a 20 stone drunk aggressive attacker, eye strikes, I like eye strikes but they do come with dangers fotr the untrained - what if they move ever so slightly, close their eyes, you hit a harder part of the skull and hurt your fingers or again the attack is not delivered ferociously enough.

I am not asking about specifics, there is no save all defense we, all know that (or should) what I'm saying is just coz they worked for him and her and him how do you know they will work for you? Especially if there is a Chinese whispers effect of the person teaching you has never used it and the person who taught then so it has lost that vital touch required to be effective. Sure you can see some guy on you tube smashing another guys face in with an elbow and think oh ok, if the guy comes at me like that I'll smash him with an elbow but if you don't understand the complexity of the tech, the foot work body positioning involved or more importantly have never felt the reality of battle and what it does too you or again the elbow is not delivered with 100% commitment it wont work for you.

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

If im understanding you this time you either mean you want to know if the technique itself works or if the person can apply it. obviously you can research about the damage it would cause without using it so the only way to find out if you could apply it would be to go looking for trouble.


couple things im not clear on. avoid what exactly? uncertainty? that comes with all things in life so no thats not avoidable.

Not the tech but the teaching style and mind set is what I'm more concerned about - and avoid? Avoid teaching people they are more prepared for a SD situation than they truly are.

Personally I think combative sparing and training has a huge part to play; No it does not mimic real life or death situations but it does get you a lot, lot closer and in preparing for them you become more able to deliver effective techniques.

I hope I'm clear???? Not sure I am as this is quite difficult to explain;

In short; yes you can believe that after 24 hours in a small air tight box that the cat is dead but without opening it how do you know? The reason I say this was used to undo conceptualizisum is that this ask you to believe that say a tree makes no sound because it fell without human intervention or witness whereas Schrodingers principle asks simply to understand the limitation of the information available to you and not makes statements you cannot 100% back up with fact.

Again I'm no student of this, I could be way off mark and am probably not making myself as clear as I'd like too as I think this is highly relevant to all that we do in training and teaching Self Preservation which is why I post it here to ask those with far greater training. life experiences and understanding than I.

[shinobijesus]

Originally Posted by Dent

As a sidebar: I have lashed a knee and gouged an eye with very poor results. The knee I understood, because the angle wasn't great. The eye, well that one still boggles my mind. My thumb was well into the socket, and the guy kept going. I know he was off his head on drugs when I got involved, but he was well beyond what I've encountered before. Only shoving him under water had any effect, and only then because I think he kept breathing.

i understand about the knee thing. it was just off the top of my head. it definitely is an iffy move depending on wether or not low kicks are your forte.

i can believe that about the eye thing with the thumb as well. if you watch UFC you may have seen Anthony Johnson vs Kevin Burns. Burns' thumb goes incredibly deep into Johnsons eye. he later had surgery for detached retinas but seems to be ok now. although ive personally always thought the point of nukite to the eye was to use longer fingers than the thumb to disrupt their entire socket.

Originally Posted by tmd

I like eye strikes but they do come with dangers fotr the untrained - what if they move ever so slightly, close their eyes, you hit a harder part of the skull and hurt your fingers or again the attack is not delivered ferociously enough.

true. though i think martial artists have an edge since we learn about makiwara and similar training techniques regarding nukite.

Originally Posted by tmd

Especially if there is a Chinese whispers effect of the person teaching you has never used it and the person who taught then so it has lost that vital touch required to be effective.

i get this. however isnt this a concern with anything you ever learn in any martial art? how did you come to terms with this before, when it just applied to martial arts in general and not this topic of self defense?

as far as not teaching people theyre more prepared for self defense than they really are thats on the teachers. its up to each teacher to teach properly rather than mislead their students. just like any other subject or ability you learn from someone.

it sounds like youre looking for a specific answer but there isnt one really. like youve said you cant ever know what will happen as a result of your technique. when dealing with a self defense situation nothing is certain. thats why its often stressed that you need to go all out in such situations because your life could be on the line. you need to use the technique and risk the consequences because the consequences of inaction or hesitation could be worse. but youve heard that before, right?

[tmd]

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

it sounds like you're looking for a specific answer but there isn't one really.

Agreed, and not What I'm seaking I guess is to get past is that in a way there is no answer and in another way a definitive one but it could get you hurt - this is the point - I am not really looking for an answer or offering one - what I was looking for and hopefully get was some fresh ideas on the subject and to put the thought out there that teaching tech is not the end of teaching SD.

With regards to the potential misrepresentation of Kihon & Kata I am not trying to upset anyone but if my hand is in the wrong position during TenshoI will not die So I can live with th inaccuracies of hand me down teachings here, with regards to sparing tuition we all take what where told and develop our own way of fighting quite naturally so again miss information posses a far lower risk than a badly taught SD move.

We have also decided as a family that Schrödinger was a fool to use a cat in his experiment as a cat will do whatever the hell it whats, box or no box - chances are when he did open it he found it wasn't even in there, it was found the road nicking beef jerky off the off counter at the 7-11. End of experement!