Core of All Learning and Martial Arts/Self-Defence Instruction

My last post concerned the PTSD story based on my work for a chapter in my book, Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. That chapter has been put on hold as I returned to the chapter on The Strategic Use of Emotion to Counter Fear in War. The book is a process and product of learning and insight. As I learn more and gain more insights, it impacts on previously written chapters that produced that learning and insights, and thus a re-think and re-write is required.

This post, however, is a return to the core of all learning. The core of all learning is the second chapter in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques because it is such an important concept. This has become so obvious in the past few weeks based on discussions with various martial artists.

In their book on research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) explain that the identification of similarities and differences may be considered the core of all learning. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock explain that research has identified four highly effective forms of identifying similarities and differences: comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. 

We use the identification of similarities and differences to make sense of our world every single day. Understanding this concept enables us to use it consciously and deliberately rather than unconsciously and accidentally.

The martial arts is the very definition of the use of the core of all learning. The Karate Kid's 'wax on, wax off' is the very definition of the use of metaphors to teach karate techniques. Housner and Griffey (1994) use this movie as an example of the use of metaphor in motor skill instruction.

'Horse-riding' stance is another use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques. In each case, as is the case with the identification of similarities and differences generally, the known is used to teach/understand the unknown. 

Of course the use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques has its limitations for a variety of reasons. For instance, wing chun's 'goat gripping' stance does not help me understand this stance given that I have never seen anyone try and grip a goat. Ditto with Mas Oyama's birin, 'tail of dragon' stance. Even after watching Game of Thrones I have no idea what a tail of dragon stance would look like, not initially anyway.

How do you explain aikido? 'It's like jujutsu, but ...' What is pencak silat? 'It's an Indonesian form of karate.' Using the known to understand the unknown by identifying similarities and differences.

One of Jan de Jong's favourite theory questions in his jujutsu shodan grade was, 'What is the difference between o soto gari, o soto otoshi, and o soto guruma?' A more complete and insightful question would have been, what are the similarities and differences between those three techniques. 

The very reason for Minoru Mochizuki's kentai ichi no kata (kata of sword and body) is to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed defences (see here). A sword defence is demonstrated followed with a similar but different (unarmed) defence. A more complete kata would be to focus on the similarities and differences because unarmed techniques can be/are compromised in order to fit with the theme of the kata, that being to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques.

In the current chapter I'm working on, one of the strategic uses of emotion to counter fear in war is the 'inculcation of hope.' Petersen and Liaras (2006), whose paper the chapter is based upon, use fear to understand hope. When those who argue that hope is not an emotion, they base their argument on a comparison between hope and the concept of emotions generally.

I was training some students in certain shime waza (strangulation techniques) from a prescribed attack and one technique did not 'feel' right. These shime waza are the same as those taught in judo so I studied the judo version. What I found was the judo techniques are applied with tori (the applyer) already behind uke (the applyee). The JDJ method was from a high punch where tori started off in front of uke and had to find a way to get behind them in order to apply the technique. This leads to all sorts of questions, however, knowledge and insight was gained through comparing those same techniques used in judo and JDJ's jujutsu.

I was reflecting on JDJ's jujutsu grading system and did so by comparing it to that of his aikido and other aikido, jujutsu, and karate grading systems. Far more insights were gained by doing so then if I'd simply attempted to study that grading system in isolation. In fact, the very concept of 'best practice' is based on comparison.

In another part of my life, I am a financial and corporate governance professional. What is the purpose of financial statements? It's to inform. How does it do so? Through the identification of similarities and differences. FSs are comprised of income, expenses, assets, liabilities, and owner's equity. Those are all classes of financial transactions. To better understand financial performance and financial position, you compare. Compare month to year-to-date, current year to previous year, other companies in the same industry, etc.

While most martial artists are comfortable with this concept, they often baulk at classification. This becomes very evident when I raise the issue that most, if not all, martial arts acknowledge the existence of throwing and takedown techniques but do not know how they are different. The common response is that the difference is academic and/or classification is an administrative exercise and serves no useful purpose (even though the very idea of throwing techniques and takedown techniques is an exercise in classification). Not so.

'Classification is often thought of as an administrative exercise and treated with disdain within the martial arts community. Lakoff (1987) warns against such a dismissive attitude. He suggests that there is nothing more basic to our thought, perception, action, and speech than classification and that without the ability to classify we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives' (extract from my book).

Kano, the founder of Kodokan judo, was an educator (teacher). It is no wonder that he developed a classification system for judo. The idea of classification of techniques is seen in some aikido systems where their founders were also students of Kano.

One example, albeit a good example, of the benefits of classification is its use in 'previewing'. By previewing techniques, whether by classification or comparison, the student already knows what to look for in a defence before they even see it. They can call on their prior knowledge of similar techniques to help in learning the new technique efficiently and effectively.

Learning to think, teach, learn, and explain in terms of similarities and differences improves with practice. You'll notice the improvements in teaching, learning, and correcting/improving performances.

References:

Housner, L.D. and D.C. Griffey. 1994. Wax on, wax off: Pedagogical content knowledge in motor skill instruction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 65: 63-68.

Marzano, R.J., D. Pickering and J.E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Petersen, R. and E. Liaras. 2006. Countering fear in war: The strategic use of emotion. Journal of Military Ethics 5(4): 317-333.

Holistic Martial Arts

I'm working on a chapter on stress training which is being increasingly used by the military and law enforcement to better prepare their personnel for operational deployment.

The first phase of stress exposure training and stress inoculation training is information provision which includes indoctrination where the usefulness of stress training is demonstrated to the trainee.

This can be achieved by explaining the relationship between stress training and learning to fight.

McCaughey explains that learning to fight involves the coordination of thinking, feeling, and acting. She also explain how most self-defence empahsise the physical but not the emotional and thinking. Various papers on stress training for the military say the same thing of traditional military training.

Stress training distinguishes between training and stress training. The way I explain the difference is that training is learning to fire a gun at a target whereas stress training is learning to fire a gun at a target that is firing at you.

Training = physical. Stress training = mental + emotional. Training + stress training = physical + mental + emotional.

This is an attempt at adopting a holistic approach to preparing a person to engage in a violent encounter.

The fighting trilogy also explains our natural response to a threat. The objective of our natural response to a threat is survival. The objective of 'Fight Activities' is to fight. To fight for a variety of reasons, including survival, but to fight nonetheless. They have to develop ways and means to counter our natural response to a threat. The target there is primarily the mental and emotional elements in the fight trilogy.

LeDoux refers to that as the conflict between evolutionary and cultural agendas. The evolutionary agenda is survival. The cultural agenda of Fight Activities is fight. They develop ways and means to resolve this conflict in agendas in their favour.

All Fight Activities training, including martial arts training, is at its heart a fight between our natural and learned responses to a threat.

When did teaching martial arts become not enough?

When did teaching/learning martial arts become not enough? Is teaching/learning martial arts relevant anymore?

I am continually seeing fitness appended to martial arts when advertising or promoting one's teachings. My old school, or at least the school that emerged from my old school, rebranded itself from Jan de Jong Self Defence School to Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness. The WA Institute of Martial Arts advertises 'Martial Arts Fitness is here.' I just saw another advert/promotion directly coupling martial arts with fitness.

Is a dojo now also a gym? What is the focus of the teaching, martial arts or fitness? Do you ever see cricket, football, basketball etc directly coupled with fitness? 'Football fitness is here.' 'Netball fitness is here.' You don't see other physically activities desperately trying to establish relevance by appending their activity to fitness.

If the focus is on fitness, what impact does that have on martial arts teaching?

Efficiency is a feature of Jigoro Kano's teachings. Efficiency means less effort. The more efficient your tactics and techniques the less effort required to execute them. Does that mean that teachings which teach efficient tactics and techniques are less because they don't focus on fitness which requires more effort?

I understand the marketing impulse to try and extend the brand from martial arts to the fitness industry given the interest in martial arts appears to be waning. But does extending the brand mean that the brand loses meaning? Or that the product is over extended? Is aikido a means to get fit rather than to learn aikido?

When I teach, I am only interested in fitness insofar as it contributes to martial arts effectiveness. I am not interested in teaching fitness for the sake of fitness. If you are unfit and effective, it's all good to me. If you want to get fit, for whatever reason, join a gym. Go for a run. Stop driving your car and walk to work or school.

The two best instructors in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School were Shihan Jan de Jong and Sensei Greg Palmer. Nobody would ever accuse them of being fit, however, they were extremely effective as practitioners and most definitely as teachers. When I wanted to learn martial arts, I'd go to them before any of the other 'fit' instructors.

Systemic Approach to Defensive and Offensive Aggression

Getting toward the completion of Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. The conclusion ties up the reading experience for the reader and helps them  think about the bigger implications of the book content, the next steps that they can take, and the lessons that they can learn from what they’ve read. I use systems theory to accomplish those objectives.


A system is a set of related components that work together in a particular environment to perform whatever functions are required to achieve the system’s objective. There are four basic elements to a system: input, throughput (process), output, and feedback. 

Our natural response to a threat is a system whose objective is survival - the 'survival system.' The survival system is comprised of cognition (appraisal), feeling, physiological arousal, impulses to action, and over behaviour components that are interconnected via feedback loops and which work together to achieve the objective of the system - survival.

McCaughey (Real Knockouts, 1997) explains that learning to fight involves the coordination of thinking, feeling, and acting. McCaughey is describing a 'fight system.' The fight system contains the same components as the survival system, however, the objective is to fight. To fight for a variety of reasons but to fight nonetheless. At the very least, the components of the fight system cannot work against the behaviour component (fight) if the objective of the fight system is to be realised.


An Australian female university student who is a taekwondo black belt with many years experience was sexually assaulted on campus. She explains that she was capable of defending herself because of her extensive martial arts training, however, at the time of the assault she was ‘paralysed with fear.’ An American female judoka who had studied judo for self-defence two hours a day, five days a week, for 2 1/2 years was sexually assaulted, however, ‘she found herself dangerously unprepared for what happened during the actual attack.’ She explains how she had plenty of opportunities to strike back but she did not even scream. ‘Instead, she froze.’ These female martial artists were let down by a systemic failing in their training.

McCaughey refers to an instructor who remarked that the biggest problem with self-defence courses is an overemphasis on the physical without the mental and emotional:

‘There are people who don’t quite understand what they are doing when they teach … and I think part of it is that instructors don’t offer what I call a balance – mental and emotional aspect of human beings combined with physical skills …’ (1997, 110)

The same may be said of most martial arts.


The first step in remedying this deficiency in martial arts training and that of any activity associated with preparing a person to engage in a violent encounter is in understanding our natural response to a threat.

Many people use the fight-or-flight concept to explain our natural response to a threat. Unfortunately, most of those that do have a limited and flawed understanding of the concept and the concept itself is limited and flawed.

Many people also use the stress concept to explain our natural response to a threat. They often follow Bruce Siddle's efforts in Sharpening the Warrior's Sword, whether they know it or not. The stress concept was derived from the fight-or-flight concept and therefore all of the limitations and flaws associated with the fight-or-flight concept in explaining our natural response to a threat are inherent in the stress concept when used for the same purpose. Those limitations and flaws are compounded as stress research focused on the deleterious effects of 'stress' on health, thus further limiting and skewing their interest in our inherited survival mechanism.

A complete and comprehensive explanation of our natural response to a threat is provided in Fear and Fight. It also enables us to better understand our learned responses to a threat because they are all interventions in the survival system.

Throws and Takedowns

I'm finally finalising my book on the science behind fighting techniques.

One chapter in that book is on throws and takedowns. Despite the common meaning of the terms provided by the Oxford Dictionary, it appears the martial arts has managed to confuse the meaning of the terms as applied to marital arts techniques.

I provide a biomechancially based classification for all techniques that are designed to cause a person to fall to the ground. It's based on the biomechanics of balance and stability. A person is stable if their centre of gravity (CoG) is located over their base of support (BoS) and balanced if they possess control of their CoG with respect to their BoS.

It was interesting reviewing the literature on the throws and takedowns of various martial arts. Books dedicated to throws and takedowns of various martial arts did not distinguish between the two, and in fact often only referred to throws.

Judo, according to Kano's classification of Judo techniques, does not teach takedowns.

A throw is a technique were forces are applied to cause both of the opponent's feet to leave the ground. The biomechancial target of the applied forces is the opponent's BoS.

A takedown is a techniques were forces are applied to cause an opponent's CoG to fall outside of their BoS and a balance recovery is prevented. Takedowns can be subclassified as 'one-legged' or 'two-legged' (for want of a better description) takedowns. The biomechancial target for one-legged takedowns is a person's foot in contact with a support surface. For instance, a foot sweep is a one-legged takedown.

The biomechanical target of a two-legged takedown is an opponent's CoG. Forces are applied to cause an opponent's CoG to fall outside of their BoS and a balance recovery is prevented. A hiki-otoshi (elbow drop) is an example of a two-legged takedown.

Irimi-nage and Mukae-daoshi are good examples of the confusion held within the martial arts over this issue. Irimi-nage is 'entering throw' taught by aikido.





Mukae-daoshi is 'meeting takedown' taught by Yoseikan Budo/Aikido and Jan de Jong.

Using Kano's division of judo techniques (kuzushi, tsukuri, kake), the same kuzushi and tsukuri result in different kake depending on the direction of the applied forces in the kake phase. The same unbalancing and positioning results in a throw or takedown depending on the direction of the applied forces in the execution phase of the technique.

The irimi-nage/entering throw is in fact a takedown while the mukae-daoshi/meeting takdown is in fact a throw. What that also means is that the latter is entirely dependent on the momentum generated during the kuzushi phase of the technique.

It also means that the applied forces for a throw are upward whilst the applied forces for a takedown are downward. A biomechanical understanding of these techniques enables a student to know what to look for in learning and training these techniques as does the instructor. It makes better students of students and better instructors of instructors.

Courage or Fearless

 

Which would you rather be when engaged in a violent encounter? Courageous or fearless?

Many confuse the two. Many use the terms interchangeably. Some even use the terms together to describe a medal of whatever winner as courageous and fearless. Often the use of the terms are to express our admiration for the actor with no regard to the inner state of the actor.

Courage is generally defined in terms of acting in spite of fear. Acting in spite of fear cannot by definition be described as fearless.

What do you train for in a violent encounter: courage or fearlessness? In order to answer that question we need to take one step back.

When writing about fear and war, Ardant du Picq in On War wrote: 'Nothing is changed in the heart of man.' The heart of man (and woman) to which du Picq refers is fear. Fear was selected for in nature because it conferred a survival advantage on an individual. Now we need to take another step back.

Colonel John M. House wrote in Why War? Why an Army? that soldiers must overcome their fear of death and injury in order to act and survive on the battlefield. Fear was selected for in nature because it conferred a survival advantage on an individual. Why then do soldiers need to overcome their fear of death and injury in order to survive on the battlefield? The answer to that question lies within House's ordering of military priorities: act first, survive second.

This priority is seen in the pledge associated with the U.S. Army’s Medal of Honor – ‘I will always place the mission first’ – which is also a part of the U.S. Army’s Soldiers Creed or Warrior Ethos. Nature’s priority is survival first, which is facilitated by fear, the instinct for self-preservation. The instinct for self-preservation and its priority for survival is often at odds with the military priority of mission first. For instance, French explains that ‘The core motivational challenge for warriors to overcome is that they must counter the (perfectly natural) fear of death (or desire to remain alive, to give it a more positive frame) when necessary in order to successfully complete their martial mission.'

General Sir Peter de la Billiere, in the preface to Lord Moran's classic The Anatomy of Courage, explains that 'Courage conquers fear' and that without courage in battle all is lost. The underlying assumptions here is that (a) fear is present, and (b) fear interferes with the priority of mission first. Courage, acting in spite of fear, is needed in order to resist the instinct for self-preservation in order to promote the military priority of mission first.

What about fearlessness? The lack of fear, which means there is no need for courage. The samurai trained for mushin no shin, mind of no mind, which means no emotion. No fear, nor anger. By the by, anger is an empowering emotion which has been used since time immemorial to motivate people to overcome fear in order to fight. Why don't our modern-day military and law enforcement train for mushin no shin? De la Billiere, House, and many others have said that a person who does not fear death and injury in battle are stupid. Were the samurai stupid?

De la Billiere said that anyone going into battle must understand courage. I disagree. They must understand fear. In fact, they must understand emotion full stop. In the AFL they say that 90% of the game is played above the shoulders. What they are referring to is that emotion determines the outcome of the game. Miller in The Mystery of Courage refers to military training as an exercise in fear management. Keegan in The Face of Battle suggested that the study of battle is always a study of fear and usually of courage. Study fear; study emotion; if you are training to engage in a violent encounter.

My current work on my current work is such a study.

Courage and the Samurai

Were the samurai courageous?

Courage is most often defined as acting in spite of fear. Therefore, in order for an 'actor' to be courageous they must first be fearful.

I've written previously how the term 'courage' and fearless' are most often used by a third party to express their awe of another person's actions with no regard as to their inner state, that is to say if they acted even though scared. However, by definition those who are not scared are not courageous.

Courage, as Lord Moran wrote in his classic The Anatomy of Courage, is will-power. This means the intellect being used to check emotion, in this case fear. Do the samurai use will-power/intellect to check fear and therefore act on the battlefield?

The samurai train for mushin no shin, mind of no mind. It is a state in which the samurai do not experience emotion or thought and act anyway. Therefore, by definition, the samurai at least aspired to be non-courageous.

This brings into question fearlessness, which I have also written about. General Sir Peter de la Billiere in Moran's book, Colonel John M. House in his Why War? Why an Army?, and Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, winner of the VC, all state words to the effect that anyone who says they were not scared in combat is either a fool or lying.

Are the samurai fools or are they lying if mushin no shin training is successful? Is mushin no shin/fearlessness something the modern military should be aspiring to and therefore should be studied in order to teach to their trainees?

Book #1 Progress

My first book, the book that inspired this block, is nearing completion. It is about the science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

1. I need a 'snappy title' to process ':The science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

2. I need to shorten the explanation after ':'.

3. I need a phrase that includes martial arts, self-defence, combat sports, law enforcement methods, and military close combat. I initially was using 'Survival Activities', however, the primary teachings of those activities is sometimes not survival.

Would appreciate your help on these matters.

I have a professional photographer on board, complete with lights, cameras, consent forms, and copyright issues.

I have two 'models' complete with contrasting gi.

I have a dedicated location.

Within the body of the book, there is only one small part missing. An anatomical description of wrist twists and wrist locks. I have, for the first time in this literature, an anatomical description of all shoulder locks, elbow locks, forearm locks, and side wrist locks.

As I explain in the book, the medical literature is of no assistance as >85% of all injuries to the upper limb occur as a result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injuries) and the forces experienced then are very different to those experienced when a joint-lock (kansetsu waza) is applied.

The Australian Institute of Sport has a Combat Centre that focuses on combat sports. I am trying to get in contact with anyone associated with the AIS CC to discuss this matter. If anyone can help, most appreciated.

Suffrajitsu

Interesting article on jujutsu and the suffragettes of yesteryear:

The Suffragettes Who Learned Martial Arts to Fight for Votes

My book on the science behind all fighting techniques and the teaching thereof is about complete. There's only an anatomical explanation of wrist twists and wrist crushes to be obtained.

The photo shoot and illustrations are in the process of being organised.

The above photograph shows a shoulder lock that can be understood and studied by reference to the applied forces and their effect on the humerus. It will also be explained that additional forces need to be applied to keep the officer from bending further forward as the body naturally moves to release the tension in the shoulder joint.

By the way, any reader who has a 'snappy' title suggestion, I'd appreciate it. The above description can follow after the ':', however, need a snappy title apparently. Unfortunately 'Fighting Science' is already taken.

Moral Courage

Moved from working on the chapter about fear and courage to the impulse to action component within the survival process which enables courage, however, while researching fear and courage I came across the common military distinction between physical courage and moral courage.

Physical courage is acting in spite of fear. Fighting when Nature screams to flee. Moral courage ... now that is another beast entirely.

Moral courage is doing what is 'right' even though it may be unpopular. Writers on the subject suggest that men are prepared to walk into the face of cannons but are reluctant to stand up and be recognised when moral courage is required. In fact, they suggest that those with moral courage possess physical courage but those with physical courage do not necessarily possess moral courage.

From my work, what I am investigating is the role of emotion in the moral concept of courage. Physical courage involves the use of will-power to override the instinctive impulses of fear. Moral courage does not tend to involve the emotion of fear. It involves the cognitive/intellectual concept of fear but not the 'real' emotional experience of fear.

I was involved with a school where a particular situation tested the moral courage of the instructors and senior personnel. To a person they failed. There is no doubt they possessed physical courage as they'd demonstrated it on many occasions, however, they failed when moral courage was called for. Why? How?

Loyalty is the enemy of moral courage. Take the military for instance. Loyalty to the chain of command, to a commander, to one's own fellow troops can compromise an individual's moral courage.

The most common way to train physical courage is to engage in 'realistic' training. How do you train moral courage? ... and does it really matter?