Do you keep an open mind?
You shouldn’t.
Let me explain. I had a conversation recently with someone who took issue with my publishing approach to The Martialist. I hold in very high regard the “marketplace of ideas” concept that characterizes the best philosophical and political debate. One of my favorite magazines used to be Liberty, which regularly published one side of an issue before following up in the next issue with the other side. Both articles in a typical exchange were written from a Libertarian perspective, yet the authors came to opposing conclusions.
I enjoy this type of thing immensely, because it stimulates critical thinking. Ayn Rand once said that an open mind isn’t of benefit when what one needs is an active mind – a mind willing to evaluate ideas critically to separate the true from the false. The arbiter of truth is reality. Those who adhere to this philosophy do not always agree, however, because their experiences of reality and their abilities to analyze that reality critically vary from person to person.
The individual with whom I spoke takes very seriously the information he posts online. He views himself as a tutor – someone who cannot afford to propagate questionable theories in a field in which failure means maiming or death.
The ultimate standard of what is and is not effective self-defense is, after all, reality. What works is what works. The tutor’s approach must be to state only what he or she believes to be true, brooking no deviation from this set of precepts.
I agree – and yet I found myself in disagreement with this individual. I am not a blooded special-ops soldier, a law-enforcement officer, or an underground fight club celebrity. I’m just a balding white guy. I’ve been studying the martial arts for over a decade, jumping from style to style. It’s only in the last few years that I’ve found the right fit for me – and only in the last two years that I’ve gained the confidence necessary to state my views and share my experiences in the field of self-defense. I’m not an amateur, but I don’t have the background possessed by my critic. Does that, then, automatically make him right and me wrong?
One may defer to greater experience where appropriate. One cannot, however, allow someone else to do one’s thinking. As a rational, critically thinking adult, only I can judge – based on my own actions and experiences and research and logic – what I know to be true. Someone else farther along the learning curve of self-defense has much to offer those farther behind – but that individual cannot live others’ lives for them, cannot know without direct experience the nature of those others’ training, and ultimately is simply another rational adult who has come to his own conclusions based on his thought processes and experiences.
This brings me to the point of this editorial. I believe very much in what I write. Anything that appears in The Martialist with my name on it is something I believe you can file as “true,” if it passes your critical analysis. Others who contribute here similarly stand behind what they write – but when reading any article here, you must do so with an active mind. We cannot make the choice for you. We cannot think for you. We would not want you to want us to do that. We merely state what we believe and offer it to you as part of your own research and study.
When I first started studying self-defense around 1990 or so, I had no overarching frame of reference for what was good and bad. I had to apply critical thinking and my own experiences to what I absorbed to see if it was true or false. That is the process you, too, must undergo. There are more resources now than when I began. The need for critical thinking has only increased. Do I have the knowledge and experience to speak with authority on the topics I address? I believe so – or I would not choose to address those topics. Do others have more experience and more knowledge? Undoubtedly – but they still cannot do my thinking for me.
Take, for example, Wing Chun Kung Fu, a system in which I believe strongly. Taught poorly, it is no better than countless impractical systems. Taught well, as taught by my teacher, it is a direct, aggressive, preemptive platform for the delivery of vicious and overwhelming force. Bruce Lee, after relatively little training in Wing Chun, declared it too traditional and formal, too static to be truly effective as a system. Even Bruce Lee’s opinion is worth as much as that of anyone else who has dabbled in Wing Chun – it does not represent the working knowledge of the system that an active and devoted practitioner of that system possesses. It also does not account for the huge variances in the way the system is taught and practiced across different schools – variances that have produced such bitter rivalries that no two Wing Chun practitioners can be assumed to be friends.
This does not mean one cannot evaluate other systems in general without having practiced them – but it does mean one cannot look at another person and say, “TKD? I could kick your ass because I think TKD sucks.” The only way to find out the truth would be to have that fight. Systems, in general, are open to criticism. Individuals can only be judged on their individual merits.
Where the Web is concerned we see another phenomenon that occurs with self-defense publications in hardcopy as well as online. That is overanalysis of pictures, sometimes posed and sometimes not. A critic told me that this picture…
…is evidence that I “don’t know what I’m doing” in FMA. The picture, however, is of me and a student being taught, by an instructor off-camera, the components of a pattern drill. We are both resting our unused second sticks on our shoulders as we slowly patty-cake our way through the numbered piece of the drill. The photo was taken for an article in MartialTalk magazine specifically about training in Wing Chun. Reading too much into a picture of that type simply leaves you pontificating on something of which you lack direct knowledge.
From the other side, eager readers must not try to learn too much about the specifics of a combat form or position from pictures on the Web or in magazines. Too much context is missing from any given photo. Certain conclusions can be drawn – I once criticized the rifle acumen of an individual based on a website picture that was riddled with obvious errors – but the originator of any picture can always turn your conclusions aside by providing context in opposition to your opinions.
I’m making a point in all this. That point is not that it is impossible to learn about self-defense principles and even specifics from the Web and publications like The Martialist. I’m simply saying that you are obligated to use critical thinking in everything you absorb. You do not have the luxury of allowing anyone to do your thinking for you. You may, indeed, lack the knowledge to draw a conclusion about some aspect of real-world self-defense, and if this is true you could make a lethal mistake. You must, therefore, know the risks as you apply your thought processes to the best of your ability.
Is The Martialist a quality publication and a good source of information?
Of course it is! I wouldn’t publish it if it wasn’t. Sadly, there are quite a few armchair experts out there only too willing to condemn something as “useless” or even “dangerous” simply because they disagree. I once had an argument with a fellow who didn’t like my work. “I don’t understand,” I said simply, “why we cannot agree to disagree.”
“Because you’re wrong,” he said.
When I got done laughing, I realized that was pretty much the end of the conversation.
There’s no shortage of critics on the Web who wrongly dismiss this publication. You, its readers, know better than that – for which I, its publisher, thank you.
As I’ve said many times here, the choice is truly yours and you must make it wisely. Others may try to guide you – and only you can decide how much trust you place in them. No one can live your life for you.
That is the respect I have for you, the reader. I am not your tutor or your parent. I am, in fact, your student and your host. I learn from my readers, my contributors, and my critics. We are all learning, all the time, or we are dying.
No, every way is not right. Yes, mistakes in this field will hurt and kill you. No, I don’t have all the answers. Yes, I want to help you. No, I don’t know everything. Yes, I know some things. No, no single article in this publication or any other can stand alone as your guide to your defense. Yes, you and you alone are responsible for the course, the breadth, and the depth of your study.
Can you learn self-defense from the Web?
Perhaps the better question would be, can you learn?
The choice is yours, as is the responsibility.