Category Archives: Critical Thinking, Reason, & Skepticism

What is a “Dead-Pattern”?

Leave a reply

What does the term “dead-pattern” mean when applied to martial arts?

It means the direct opposite of Aliveness.

The video below is a textbook example of dead-pattern training.

Watch the feeder, not the one doing the demonstration.

Note how he locks out his arm in a manner no attacker on earth would ever use – allowing the fantasy-based martial arts instructor to add in all his make-believe movement.

Listen to the verbiage. Hear all the boy-speak?

You will hear him talk about how this blow will break such and such bone, or how this move will allow you to “kill” the attacker. It is all nonsense, it’s all childish bravado. However, that ad-copy helps sell the delusion to scared and insecure people. People, mostly boys and men, who would otherwise benefit massively from functional martial arts, i.e. combat sports training.

Nothing good will come from this.

You’re learning habits that you’ll have to break if you ever do engage in functional training.

You’re developing a false sense of confidence that, at best, will waste your precious time, and at worst, get you seriously hurt.

And, in the case of the instructor, you’re making the world a little more ignorant, rather than a little more enlightened. You are moving those asking for help further away from the solution.

It’s never hard to see through all this if you’re honest with yourself, and you know what to look for.

Ignoring it isn’t kind or polite, it’s generally apathetic. What would you say to someone you really cared about, when it comes to this sort of training? Would you let your daughter train this way?

Consider that before you drop the flippant and dishonest line that “All arts have something good to offer.”

Be kind. Tell the truth. 🦍💡

SBG Korea head coach, John Frankl and I discussed this specific topic in the spring of 2018. Coach John is a teacher by both profession and hobby. He is professor of Korean literature, with a graduate degree from Harvard, and, a world-class BJJ coach who has been extremely influential to SBG’s curriculum over the years. His insights are worth listening to.

If you’ve ever wondered just how honest is too honest, you will probably enjoy our discussion:

Filters not Containers

Leave a reply

Yesterday I was helping out in my daughter’s science class at OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry). The topic was weather, in particular lightning and clouds.

I don’t want this to read as a criticism of the teacher, I think she did a pretty good job overall, and it was clear she likes to help children. But, what struck me was the methodology. There were some hands on experiments – excellent – but, there was also a lot of information – names of different types of clouds, how to measure the distance of lightning by counting down from the flash to the sound, things like that. What there was none of, was why.

Yes, you can see the flash, then count the seconds, and roughly measure the distance from you to the lightning. But, why? Why does that work? No mention of the fact that you’re measuring sound waves. No mention of the fact that it’s a repeatable experiment. No mention of epistemology at all.

My daughter is 7. We have to consider that. But here is what I think will happen. Some kids, a very few, will remember the names of those clouds. Most of them won’t, but they will now know there are different kinds of clouds. Many of them will probably remember the system for measuring distance by sound, because it was a physical experiment, and physical experiments are great tools for learning. But, most all of that information will be forgotten very shortly. What was missed, was a fantastic opportunity to explain HOW we arrive at conclusions, as opposed to what those conclusions are.

I believe this has always been true, but it’s even more true now – every single one of those kids can type any question into google, or, like my kids, say “Hey, Siri,” or, “Hey Alexa,” and get just about any question they want answered. My kids, and the kids in that room, have more information available to them within a matter of seconds than Bill Clinton had when he was sitting in the oval office.

Given that, why are we focused on making kids containers of information, as opposed to filters of information?

If the kids understand how the method works, what constitutes evidence, what it means for something to be repeatable, falsifiable, testable, then they will be able to navigate the tsunami of data they will be immersed in as adults. If not, I think many will drown in it, and we will reach a place where most adults rely on others, most likely some AI, to do all the thinking for them.

Filters, not containers.

Why have we not figured this out yet? Age appropriate critical thinking skills should begin at home, and pick up as a structured curriculum starting in the first grade.