Self Taught

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Draven

Fixed behavior exists in human beings as well, however modern pyschology dictates all are self-taught.
Experience:
What you did? Transfers to what you unconscious mind has retained. Experience is raw data in action.
Processing:
When you "internalize" the expersience, think about what you have did and process the event into your conscious mind. Learning from experience yourself.
Apply:
Once your conscious mind has processed the raw data into refined data, you then must apply or accept the the refined data between the conscious and unconscious mind. Self-learning from experience, even what is taught can be blurred by the glitches within a persons mind such as prejustices, habit, emotion, etc.

Like I said basic psychology...

Very good. This is interesting, but it should be reminded such a Psycho-analytical process is not an example of human Fixed Behaviour/Action Pattern. It is an example of cognitive psychology.

Although it contributes to the process of learning, it is fairly removed from the noumenon of fixed behaviour patterns.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Magister

Very good. This is interesting, but it should be reminded such a Psycho-analytical process is not an example of human Fixed Behaviour/Action Pattern. It is an example of cognitive psychology.

Although it contributes to the process of learning, it is fairly removed from the noumenon of fixed behaviour patterns.

Yes, but you over looked the conribution of fixed behavior, striking and grappling/wrestling are innate responses. Though they do not truly become, refined to the smoother forms of response such as seen with martial arts and combat sports until the learn process applies.

For example, our mythological cave men Og, is innately prejustice to wrestling because of his great strength. But Og's brother, Ug is smaller and weaker & can never beat Og's physical power. Ug spends allot of time thinking about how to beat Og, and realized that when he yields to Og's power and adds his own strength for just a second he can throw Og to the ground. Ug has taught himself to throw, based on an innate instinct to wrestle. Ug's fixed behavior through the learning process has "created" throws as learn behavior.

Expierence comes from applying the fixed behavior but raw data, refied by the learning process. We can take this a step further, with Oog, Ug's son who learns Ug's "technique" as a "raw data" and through his own experiences progresses the concept. Unlike Ug's learning through doing, Oog faces systemized learning and thus the beginnings of a "tradition."

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Draven

Yes, but you over looked the conribution of fixed behavior, striking and grappling/wrestling are innate responses. Though they do not truly become, refined to the smoother forms of response such as seen with martial arts and combat sports until the learn process applies.

What you described in your previous post was not an example of FAP, it was an example of Cognition, or the process of learning via a Psycho-analytical process. I agree though that fighting is innate within man - a concept I have discussed on these forums as Instinctive fighting.

Originally Posted by Draven

For example, our mythological cave men Og, is innately prejustice to wrestling because of his great strength. But Og's brother, Ug is smaller and weaker & can never beat Og's physical power. Ug spends allot of time thinking about how to beat Og, and realized that when he yields to Og's power and adds his own strength for just a second he can throw Og to the ground. Ug has taught himself to throw, based on an innate instinct to wrestle. Ug's fixed behavior through the learning process has "created" throws as learn behavior.

Expierence comes from applying the fixed behavior but raw data, refied by the learning process. We can take this a step further, with Oog, Ug's son who learns Ug's "technique" as a "raw data" and through his own experiences progresses the concept. Unlike Ug's learning through doing, Oog faces systemized learning and thus the beginnings of a "tradition."

This succinct explanation is apt at describing the Constructism and Contructionism problems within the process of insitutionalisation. Your cognitive psychology applies at both the stage of Og in COnstructivist learning as well as Oog in COnstructionist learning. Subsequently, your cognitive psychological explanation discussed in your previous post describe the cognition involved in any kind of learning, not the metacognition seen in purely constructivist learning. Hence the reason I elaborated the difference in my own previous post.

[Draven]

They are both inter-related issues, a shorter explaination is this. You can tell a child how to ride a bike, show them how to ride a bike. But, they have to learn to ride the bike by doing...

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

They are both inter-related issues, a shorter explaination is this. You can tell a child how to ride a bike, show them how to ride a bike. But, they have to learn to ride the bike by doing...

But, first you got to show and tell what a bike is, small components of it, and what it does....if you dont, it's just tubular man

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

But, first you got to show and tell what a bike is, small components of it, and what it does....if you dont, it's just tubular man

I tell you what, explain to me how a moinkey can practice basic fighting concepts withour a martial arts tradition, and then how a chimp can learn karate? Fact is if you wonna learn technique, anyone even without someone else to guide them can. If you are looking at history, dogma, dojo kun, philosophy you need to be instucted, bur instructed doesn't mean teached. To be taught somehting, requires you to stop thinking for yourself. To learn means to investigate and wiegh your own opinions.

Basic fact is; you can learn without knowing every aspect of something, otherwise over half the karateka in the world wouldn't exist. And those of us who forge our own paths wouldn't be better off for it. You make no arguement against my point of view, but no matter what the student must choose to learn. That choice to is difference between being taught (mirroring what another does) and learning (being able to adapt what you know to the situation).

I can say 2 + 2 = 4, but it if you repeat that its not learning it mimicing. Learning is when I ask, what is 2+2? and oyu answer 4 and then I ask what is 2+3 and you come up with 5 because you've taught yourself to take abpart the principle of 2+2 and realize it all a variation of 1+1.

Mimic a tradition is know what you where taught. Learning is adapting what you were taught, what you know and what you want into one core concept. Or as a kung-fu guy I once knew said, a student is never more then a student until he can surpass his master. Meaning you take what was said and done before and adapt that experience passed into knowledge to your own needs.

[47MartialMan]

Mimicking is not being self taught. To be taught, is to be given instruction. One can learn Spanish words, but has to be taught how to arrange, compose, and speak them in proper tone and form. You can learn basic auto mechanics, but you have to be taught from someone else's experience.

Learning something from a book or vid, is not the same thing as be taught

BTW-
Monkey see-monkey do
Monkey sling-his own poo.
Monkeys mimic but they do not understand.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Mimicking is not being self taught. To be taught, is to be given instruction. One can learn Spanish words, but has to be taught how to arrange, compose, and speak them in proper tone and form. You can learn basic auto mechanics, but you have to be taught from someone else's experience.

Learning something from a book or vid, is not the same thing as be taught

BTW-
Monkey see-monkey do
Monkey sling-his own poo.
Monkeys mimic but they do not understand.

You still aren't grasping what I am saying. I am saying...

1- A person has to choose to learn.

2- A person must have some experience to learn or else is only mimic the concept.

3- The way the mind works no one can teach you anything, they can instruct (give basic direction) but inorder to learn you must choose to learn (internalize concepts) beyond that basic instruction...

If reference to certain things such a academic knowledge which is just memory retention, dogma, dojo kun, etc, sure it hase to be taught. But no one teaches on chimp to punch but I assure they can. The fact is someone had to "invent" the concept, mechanics, etc. by doing thus there is no "having to be taught," there is only learning and processing that knowledge.

You either learn from experience or from academics which still require experience for true understanding.

The old zen saying "One be shown the path but choose to walk it..." come from this concept, I can show you forms, techniques etc. But you must choose to learn. Without your choice to learn there is no, instruction that can make of for this. Raw data, knowledge, is nothing without experience. Experience (trial and error) can make up for the lack of raw data.

BTW-
Where did the first minkey learn to do? By failing until he learned..?

[47MartialMan]

The old zen saying "One be shown the path but choose to walk it..." come from this concept, I can show you forms, techniques etc. But you must choose to learn. Without your choice to learn there is no, instruction that can make of for this. Raw data, knowledge, is nothing without experience. Experience (trial and error) can make up for the lack of raw data.

One can be shown the path, but one has to be there in the first place in order to show it. And one has to show what a path is before a choice can be made to walk it. And just because one is in belief they can walk it alone, doesnt lend that they can do it concisely, for the journey is better with another.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Draven

They are both inter-related issues, a shorter explaination is this. You can tell a child how to ride a bike, show them how to ride a bike. But, they have to learn to ride the bike by doing...

Hence, we get down to the fact that learning is via experience, not so much via independant sense perception. However, I still stand by the fact that this is not an example of Fixed Behaviour/Action Pattern, since the drive to ride a bike is not innate. The difference between cognition and FAP was what I was focussing upon.

Originally Posted by Draven

I tell you what, explain to me how a moinkey can practice basic fighting concepts withour a martial arts tradition, and then how a chimp can learn karate? Fact is if you wonna learn technique, anyone even without someone else to guide them can. If you are looking at history, dogma, dojo kun, philosophy you need to be instucted, bur instructed doesn't mean teached. To be taught somehting, requires you to stop thinking for yourself. To learn means to investigate and wiegh your own opinions....Meaning you take what was said and done before and adapt that experience passed into knowledge to your own needs.

You have highlighted the key aspect of Institutionalisation/Ritualisation ; the fact that learning that which someone else is teaching requires a certain amount of acceptance and respect for the person and/or the teachings. You must accept that this person and/or his system has the correct responses. It must be preliminarily accepted that you yourself could not develop anything better.

This is where people like me learn what there is to be learned with a mind that the person who invented the system was only human and therefore prone to mistake. Lee called it the "Partial Truth", considering the fact all traditions have truth, but not in totality. I seek that which the founder sought. I do not accept Master Joe Bloggs teachings, or even Ueshiba or Funakoshi's teachings simply because they are deified.

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Mimicking is not being self taught. To be taught, is to be given instruction. One can learn Spanish words, but has to be taught how to arrange, compose, and speak them in proper tone and form. You can learn basic auto mechanics, but you have to be taught from someone else's experience.

Learning something from a book or vid, is not the same thing as be taught
...Monkeys mimic but they do not understand.

Today, the issue of learning from a book is fairly dependant upon the individual. Books and videos represent teachings laid out systematically - what books are are mainfestations of language, and the language is a manifestation of thought and knowledge. The problem is that people will learn from them in blind acceptance of their teachings without questioning why - and without direction, there is the possibility that the answers to this question will be wrong; unless one is one's own quality assessor via validation from sources. Hence, the pit fall of metacognition is the fact that hollow practice (mimicking) could lead to misunderstanding and maladaption.

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

..One can be shown the path, but one has to be there in the first place in order to show it. And one has to show what a path is before a choice can be made to walk it. And just because one is in belief they can walk it alone, doesnt lend that they can do it concisely, for the journey is better with another.

I'm glad you picked up on this one 47Martialman.

Unfortunately, the fundamental purpose of the martial arts is for use in fighting. The axiom of fighting is the fact that it cannot happen alone - you cannot fight yourself. It requires 2 or more people for a fight to exist. It would be like teaching yourself to swim without a swimming pool - hence Bruce Lee's analogy that Martial Arts are products of "Dryland Swimming".

Metacognition therefore depends upon two or more people sharing ideas and comparing knowledge as well as fighting eachother in order to gain experience in the "pool". This is pretty much the concept behind student-centred learning.

[m@tt 22]

Quite simple realy.

If you want to self train then go for it, but you need to know how to do the moves to train them. (unless you make them up of cause but that generally doesnt help.....)

[47MartialMan]

Today, the issue of learning from a book is fairly dependant upon the individual. Books and videos represent teachings laid out systematically - what books are are mainfestations of language, and the language is a manifestation of thought and knowledge. The problem is that people will learn from them in blind acceptance of their teachings without questioning why - and without direction, there is the possibility that the answers to this question will be wrong; unless one is one's own quality assessor via validation from sources. Hence, the pit fall of metacognition is the fact that hollow practice (mimicking) could lead to misunderstanding and maladaption.

books can give you interaction and feedback allowing one to correct mistakes that would otherwise not be discovered

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

One can be shown the path, but one has to be there in the first place in order to show it. And one has to show what a path is before a choice can be made to walk it. And just because one is in belief they can walk it alone, doesnt lend that they can do it concisely, for the journey is better with another.

Oh no, I hike and have found many a path by sheerly walking to through "untouched" ground.

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

Oh no, I hike and have found many a path by sheerly walking to through "untouched" ground.

But you knew where the path would lead. You had direction.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Magister

Metacognition therefore depends upon two or more people sharing ideas and comparing knowledge as well as fighting eachother in order to gain experience in the "pool". This is pretty much the concept behind student-centred learning.

But again the fact remains, one can learn by doing. A person can simply fight others to gain experience with no formal training. It doesn't require a teacher or having seen other act, to discover the action on your own. Untrained children can punch, instinctually and learn to perfect that instinct through experience. Fighting; is fighting, is fighting.

Which was what I was saying. That said, again, no one can learn a karate kata without instruction. But someone had to invent the idea of kata on their own with being taught. There for, an individual in a hypothetical-vacuum of combative/martial arts knowledge could invent the same concept that we know as (enter the name of any martial art) with instruction. But, no one will learn say shotokan karate, aikido, etc. without being instructed.