Self Taught

[Adagio King]

Hi,

I was wondering what are your thoughts on self taught martial arts? is it a succesful method of training, or do you think people require training from a professional?

[Jalek Moye]

it depends on the person, but i do say you require at least basic understanding in the way the body works

[sirdarksol]

Learning from DvD

online martial art teaching

Rather than get into the same old tired argument, I'll just post the results of a few of them here. There are dozens more of them hidden around the forums, I just can't find them.

Welcome to the forums, BTW. (Not trying to be unfriendly, I just don't want to get involved in the following discussion)

[Little Dragon 117]

i have to agree with Jalek Moye. if you are someone with no knowledge of how the body works, or what you can do to defend yourself then you should get an instructor.
I am self tought for the past 2-3 years, and i am actually getting better and better. I just keep training 3 hours a day 5 days a week, and 1 hour on the weekends. it just depends on your knowlege.
it is good to get an instructor though.

[nitanbo]

I am from the school of thought that says go out and learn everthing you can get your hands on, I have studied under several different instructors aswell as books dvd's and seminars ,

If you have the self disipline to train an instructor will only benifit your martial journey,


cya
nitanbo

[47MartialMan]

But to be self-taught, seems to be inapproriate of words use as saying being self trained. One can gain the knowledge held in martial arts 'alone' (this is from 'nature') (by alone, i mean without a teacher, but still with a training partner (i.e still fighting etc), but all else being equal, there is a chance you wont encounter the same knowledge (or interpret it the same way), sure, there are some fundamental points that you will have to encounter that are universal to combat, but other knowledge will be harder to find (and no guarantees, its just like any other branch of knowledge, found over time, chances of finding it all! are very slim, but you will find some (and the nature of unarmed fighting isnt as complex, nor multidisciplinary as say advanced physics, but finding the unknown is still finding the unknown). This is where a teacher comes in, has direct experience in these more subtle aspects / knowledge already found to draw from, but the problem is that there is alot of room for variation (can be both good and bad (can even learn from the 'bad', but thats another topic :P "punishment is as you perceive it in the absence of understanding") in short, a teacher isnt needed, but they have experience in that which you are attempting to learn, and compress the potential time gap it would take you to find it for yourself (its the same in any field of knowledge, the key lies in taking what is already there and growing it (why waste time 'finding' knowledge that has already been found) (except in cams case, due to unavailability of teachers)

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Adagio King

Hi,

I was wondering what are your thoughts on self taught martial arts? is it a succesful method of training, or do you think people require training from a professional?

Two things,

1) All martial artists are self-taught. They may have someone to guide them as they learn (formal lessons), but the understanding they gain and the way they apply things comes strickly from them.

A student who doesn't seek to expand their knowledge is just pretending to learn, that even goes for math and english homework form the younger people here

2) There are no professionals, just amatures who think they are professinals. Professional have experience and academic knowledge, as a rule I know a handful of teacher who have both. Otherwise 99.9999999999999999% are just high ranked students.

Not to discourage you anyone, just putting into prospective how important it is to NOT take what you learn as gossiple truth.

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

Two things,

1) All martial artists are self-taught. They may have someone to guide them as they learn (formal lessons), but the understanding they gain and the way they apply things comes strickly from them.

A student who doesn't seek to expand their knowledge is just pretending to learn, that even goes for math and english homework form the younger people here

2) There are no professionals, just amatures who think they are professinals. Professional have experience and academic knowledge, as a rule I know a handful of teacher who have both. Otherwise 99.9999999999999999% are just high ranked students.

Not to discourage you anyone, just putting into prospective how important it is to NOT take what you learn as gossiple truth.

Self taught is not the proper usage. Better to use self trained, self experiencing. You cannot teach yourself. You learn and experience. If anyone can be self-taught, then we do not need teachers in anything, nor parental guidance.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Self taught is not the proper usage. Better to use self trained, self experiencing. You cannot teach yourself. You learn and experience. If anyone can be self-taught, then we do not need teachers in anything, nor parental guidance.

Really then who taught those who origionated the concept?
Who teaches a baby crawl or to pick things to try to figure them out?

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

Really then who taught those who origionated the concept?
Who teaches a baby crawl or to pick things to try to figure them out?

A orginated concept had someone teach basics and fundamentals. No one wkaes up and says that can teach themselves.

No one teaches a babay to crawl, cry, or pick things up. But we do teach babies what not to do what they do not know.

Technically you can't be self taught, because it implies that you the teacher, are a teacher because you already know. So how can you teach yourself if you already know? What I did mean is that you can learn alot through research, for example, the very same people who ever devised a system for anything had to teach themselves through learning.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

A orginated concept had someone teach basics and fundamentals. No one wkaes up and says that can teach themselves.

No one teaches a babay to crawl, cry, or pick things up. But we do teach babies what not to do what they do not know.

Technically you can't be self taught, because it implies that you the teacher, are a teacher because you already know. So how can you teach yourself if you already know? What I did mean is that you can learn alot through research, for example, the very same people who ever devised a system for anything had to teach themselves through learning.

And babies learn to walk without being taught as well, though teaching may get you to were you want to go faster. As far as already knowing, of course you already know, learning from experience and then you teach yourself through documenting, at least in your own mind, as systemization. No need period to learn anything, same as the those who orginionally began these systems.

Expierence, leads to knowing and knowing leads to realization, realization leads to self-teaching. Basic psychology really, the mind can learn something and then must realize it possesses the data to use it. Doesn't mean won't learn princples, concepts and techniques from other sources. It means the mind must accept knowledge (realization) before it can apply that knowledge.

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

And babies learn to walk without being taught as well, though teaching may get you to were you want to go faster. As far as already knowing, of course you already know, learning from experience and then you teach yourself through documenting, at least in your own mind, as systemization. No need period to learn anything, same as the those who orginionally began these systems.

Expierence, leads to knowing and knowing leads to realization, realization leads to self-teaching. Basic psychology really, the mind can learn something and then must realize it possesses the data to use it. Doesn't mean won't learn princples, concepts and techniques from other sources. It means the mind must accept knowledge (realization) before it can apply that knowledge.

But that knowledge has to come from somewhere. Experience has to be appplied from something learned via something taught It depends on if you have experience or not in martial arts. If the answer is no, then I do not believe there is any way to effectively learn a style without an instructor. There are too many nuances and specifics that have to be mastered at the basic level that only an instructor critiquing your technique would be able to fix and address. I've learned a lot from books and videos in the last ten years or so in my training, but fellow martial artist with less time in the arts have had trouble learning and grasping the techniques from the same videos; the reason is that they lack the same fundamentals.

If you have had training in the past, then it becomes possible, although not recommended. Generally, it still has to be a style that you are close to in previous training. For example, 10 years in a kicking art such as Tae Kwon Do might allow a student to view some videos on Shotokan Karate and learn quite a bit, but a video on Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for that same student would be nearly worthless. Additionally, I see a significant drop in effectiveness based on length of time training. If you have trained for five years in a similar art, you could probably learn about a year or so of material effectively in another art without an instructor. In contrast, with fifteen years experience, I would think you could attain a skill level equal to about 6 or 7 years without much difficulty.

[Magister]

I believe the fundamental prblem with the logic forming the basis of the thread lies in the perennial misinterpretation of what Metacognition really is.

In the famous experiment by Socrates, recorded by Plato, in which a young boy, who knew the fundamentals of line and number, was able to construct pythagorean calculations without having been taught how. The triumphant Socrates declared, after the student (having thought carefully about the problem) solved the calculation, "that he had been able to use the science of logic and reason from within himself to solve the problem". So in effect, he was able to teach himself.

What you learn in schools today is a product of human endevour in using the powers of reason and logic to define the world around us. The world does not change to suit our findings, our findings change to suit our world. What is learned in school is a tradition of aquired knowledge from the world around you.

Pythagoras himself was not taught how to do his own calculations, and neither was Newton taught the laws of action and reaction prior to writing the laws which bear his name. Gravity already existed - he discovered the solution, just as Socrates' young boy had solved his calculation.

Human being's are endowed with powers of reason and logic. The baby's crawl is what Ethologists call "Fixed Behaviour Patterns". It is the same instinctive pattern which forms the basis of Evolutionary Stable Strategy. In otherwords, it is the same inherent quality which animals have to know how to fight, the drive to hunt and reproduce, without ever having been taught by parents or peers.

Essentially, martial arts are a product of a founder dictating which methods work and which ones do not. But again, this is a preference, so what you would be self-teaching would not be what Scorates' boy had figured out, but attempting to "second-guess" what the boy himself would teach others to do the same.

Upon conclusion, you would be able to teach yourself a truth from the world around you, but you would not be able to teach yourself a martial art. On the other hand, which is better; learning the truth behind all martial arts doctrines, or a single martial art doctrine?

Look up contructivism theory of wikipedia and you will realise the difference between contructivist and constructionist learning.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Magister

Upon conclusion, you would be able to teach yourself a truth from the world around you, but you would not be able to teach yourself a martial art. On the other hand, which is better; learning the truth behind all martial arts doctrines, or a single martial art doctrine?

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...

[souldrum71]

I'm of the belief that most human beings need someone pushing them in order to keep up a high level of physical exertion in training. I have studied many different styles of martial arts and have gone for up to three years in between schools training on my own. However, I have noticed that I push myself harder when I know that someone else will be gauging my progress. I guess, in truth, it is really up to the individual.