Birdbrained ideas

[Bill Glasheen]

This theme comes up again and again in my life. On the employment side of things, I create predictive models that identify certain individuals that will have bad health events in the near future. We intend to make a difference before the rain starts coming down. For quite some time, this kind of activity was competing with "expert opinion," often nothing more than tradition and folklore. We prefer "evidence-based" information.

We have our share of that in the martial arts. Van and others rant on and on all the time about cherished "truths" about fighting that fall with a thud when investigated more fully. And we have just started looking into targeted, sequential striking (a.k.a. kyusho, tuite, dim mak, pressure point fighting). Some of us believe that to be rife with superstition.

So you'll understand why this particular article struck me as amusing at the end of the day today. Perhaps we all should consider the message, lest we be called "birdbrained" one day.

Royals' Pena needs to prove he's no pigeon

- Bill

[Evan Pantazi]

Forget Pigeons, Ostrich comes to mind.

"Scientific Proof" based on "Observed Behavior". So when the observations of Kyusho/Dim Mak effects over the centuries is not accepted, but Pigeons turning left is, (...after a substantially shorter period of time, just because it was a scientist that saw this), I dare say some folks have may their head in the sand.



------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

[Ian]

Van, I think the point was that a lot of people have silly misconceptions about fighting (like pigeons) they think will protect them, and Bill was saying that on your site, people who know better are tearing down such myths and replacing them with combat realities. He used the word "rant" because you're fervent about it. It's basically a compliment.

Evan, the "scientific" observation of kyusho effects you're referring to, isn't. If you look at the data / trials / papers on chinese medicine, you see they don't care much for randomized trials, instead they like to give people their herbs and ask them if they feel better--there's often no control group so you can't tell if it was a placebo or drug effect you observed. As far as the evidence for kyusho, what's been presented (so far as I have seen, please clue me in if there's something better) are 1) evidence that people got KO'd (via story, photograph and most recently video) and 2) opinion about why.

There's lots of stuff about meridians--statements at least. I haven't seen any observations compiled and evaluated and examined for trends to suggest that the traditional chinese theories of kyusho have any validity at all. In the as-yet unrefuted paper on my website, I demonstrated that the rules (at least as presented in a Dillma text) predicted everything would work, which meant they were never wrong, really, but then again never useful either. Neither has anyone shown the rules can be incorporated into planning blows that take place fractions of seconds apart.

As Bill explained on the Kelly thread, the debate isn't about whether the people fall down but why.

[Ian]

In defense of pigeons I feel I should also say what they're ddemonstrating is a simple kind of learning. They repeat behaviors associated with getting food; if they were to return to the park at 6 pm everytime someone sat out there to feed them, we'd say they were pretty smart. They are, however, to stupid to know the difference between behaviors that are really associated and ones that aren't. People, on the other hand, ought to know better. WE do superstitious things, but pigeons are just little animal-bots running too-simple learning programs.

[Bill Glasheen]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

It's basically a compliment.

Amen. And thank you for covering my back while I was in the dojo and at home.

Van

I always walk away wiser after having been challenged by you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Now you are really pissing people off.

Never meant to. Apology extended if my tact was lacking.

But the point remains, irrespective of the talent - or lack thereof - of the messenger.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Forget Pigeons, Ostrich comes to mind.

Touché!

There are two difficult things to do in the process of discovery. One - as Evan alluded to - is to see what is right in front of your face, but not recognized or believed. The other is to let go of a cherished idea.

I'm not a black-and-white kind of guy, Evan. I am fascinated by your work, and am glad someone with your personality is championing the material. At the same time, I am a professional critic of ideas. We of the scientific profession say "Show me!" at multiple angles until satisfied. To a large extent, many of us on these forums have that same attitude. As long as individuals are respected, the process is healthy and the truth is the winner.

My personal opinion about pressure point fighting is that it is a diamond in the rough. Someone once asked Michelangelo how he went about carving the statue of David. He responded that what he did was chip away at all the rock that was not David, until nothing but the final product was left. Hmmm... Isn't that a great strategy to take about many things that we seek to perfect?

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The master looks at the marble, and visualizes perfection.

David .... David head

May we all have the hands, the heart, the soul, and the tenacity of such a master when chiseling away at what masks the better image beneath the surface.

- Bill

[Van Canna]

Bill,

Sorry. My mistake. English is only my second language, and I don't do well in American slang.



------------------
Van Canna

[Bill Glasheen]

Van

English is my first language, and I do no better.

I aimed with the sling of David, and instead broke the dining room window. So much for kyusho skills...

- Bill

[2Green]

Ian:
You mentioned the placebo in one of your posts... have you ever considered exactly how and why a placebo works?
The answer is a question, but a most interesting one.
If a placebo can create the same effect as a declared drug, which the recipient is convinced he/she is taking, then where does the positive result come from?
Are all drugs "placebos" because of our expected results of them?
Can we diminish the effects of real drugs by doubting their effects?
If you believe chi is real...?
See where I'm going with this?
Food for thought. NM

[Bill Glasheen]

2Green

Your questions to Ian are near and dear to me, as I am in the field of scientific research and must understand the difference between true efficacy vs. a variety of other potential causative factors: selection bias, regression to the mean, and the placebo effect. From the standpoint of an insurance company that must pay for care based upon the contractual issue of medical necessity, we must restrict the flow of dollars to the pharmaceutical companies based on true efficacy. An insurance company pays physicians for services rendered, and we actually measure effectiveness via a small number of metrics here and there. In that light, we end up reimbursing and reinforcing "the placebo effect." In medicine, it's called "bedside manner." Yes, it CAN make a difference. But while we sometimes pay certain physicians more for good bedside manner, we aren't going to pay pharmaceutical companies high prices for sugar pills, and we aren't going to pay medical equipment manufacturers for their "chi machines."

Taking the principle further...

Do I believe that "a placebo effect" may be involved with some of the kyusho demonstrations? Absolutely. I know it frustrates Evan when people like me say things like this, but the reality is that the placebo effect is important in medicine too. The only issue is whether or not it's the ONLY thing working for either a healthcare practitioner or a kyusho artist in any particular venue. When that's the case, THEN we need to step back and consider things a bit.

I firmly believe that "no touch knockouts" and "empty force" are strictly a power of suggestion thing. The one time I was involved testing it, the individual that claimed to have the ability wasn't able to achieve the effect when the practitioners couldn't see what they were "expected" to do.

I firmly believe that a good deal of the preacher healing stuff you see on TV and other places is power of suggestion. Praise the lord, and pass the collection plate.

Should we point our finger at this effect in kyusho and damn the practitioners? Only when it's the only thing going for them and the practitioner is making the effect out to be more than it is.

Is this effect useful to the martial artist? Absolutely. When Muhammad Ali fought George Foreman, he literally spooked the guy by running around with voodoo priests and making out to have cursed him. Whatever it takes... However, one must always have perspective on such "powers." Don't be working on your chi power, and think you can stop bullets. It's all fine in practice until the first time your opponent pulls the trigger. Oops!! The same is true when your opponent has no faith in your faith. Oops!!

Should we continue to call these mind-body effects "chi?" Why do that when there are better explanations today? When I get to my references, I'll pass on a few that can shed light on the subject.

- Bill

[Ian]

Sure I've considered how a placebo works. In the end, quality of life is nothing more than how we feel, and that means it's all in our heads. Subjective experiences are not surprisingly colored by expectations and moods. The subjective also ties into the objective. Depression affects many behaviors that can influence health. Stress influences hormonal and autonomic systems in the body that can affect health through such parameters as blood pressure. In ways we don't understand it can kick off a nice attack of psoriasis. The mind and body are closely intertwined in ways we don't come close to understanding.

That doesn't mean medicine is just a placebo effect because medicine designs its experiments to exclude that effect. If one were just to give a group of people substance X, they might feel better by some coincidence or via a placebo effect. No useful knowledge about X is gained. But if you give group A some X, and group B nothing, then you at least know (if you created equivalent groups and X was the only difference between them) that either X has some "real" action or it was a placebo effect. The best data comes when you randomize people to either the A (treatment) or B (control) groups, and then you blind both the groups and the researchers to who is getting placebo and who is getting X. This design excludes the placebo effect from being the cause of an observed difference between the groups, and it also eliminates a "placebo" effect of the researchers unconsciously finding the result they want rather than the most objective result.

A series of well designed randomized controlled double blind trials demonstrating a difference means there's something intrinsic to X that explains the observed difference in outcomes for the two groups--it's not just a placebo effect and its not all in someone's head.

The stuff in our heads is very important and tends to be overlooked entirely or underappreciated in western medicine. But we can generally (some things are hard to study) point to hard data to justify when and what and how much of which pills we hand out. Some alternative health care providers do a better job of dealing with the subjective, but sometimes that's all they've got--the subjective and an array of placebos.

The best therapy combines the two.

To answer your question drugs we hand out surely do have both "real" and "placebo" effects, and the latter and possibly some or all of the former can be reduced by doubting the drug.

While people may believe in chi, if this belief is all that leads to their being KO'd, 1) that doesn't mean chi KO'd them, anymore than it means Zeus took my algebra test in 6th grade no matter how much I believed it and 2) one had better only get attacked by chimeisters if the power of kyusho is exploiting subject's beliefs (I'm not saying that's the case, however).

[gmattson]

Looks like we will have at least one test of a kyusho technique at camp this year. If anyone has any ideas on how we can double blind the test, or at least single blind, please post here. Only a few people will know what this technique consists of or the predicted results, which means we should be able to select subjects who won't recognize whether the technique is legitimate or placebo.

ps. the technique was submitted to us by a person trained in kyusho and satisfies my request for a technique that relied on multiple hits to areas not part of Bruce Siddle's pressure point chart.

------------------
GEM

[Evan Pantazi]

Mattson Sensei,

Your statement: ps. the technique was submitted to us by a person trained in kyusho and satisfies my request for a technique that relied on multiple hits to areas not part of Bruce Siddle's pressure point chart.

As you know from some experiments at the hut, that I suggested and worked for my students and other seasoned Kyusho practioners, just knowing points to hit won't make it work. Someone that actually does Kyusho...and not just theorize, but works KO's, should apply it.

I knew the points for 3 years before I got my first KO as there is so much more than "knowing a group of points to hit". This is also why there are ney sayers, as everyone tries it but does not realize what is really involved making it work. So they try it once and "oh the guy didn't drop...this stuff doesn't work"!

So if you test it be aware that the findings from a non experienced practioner will not validate the test.

As for placebo, hypnosis...when you get a student up and miss the technique (points not struck properly, poor energy transfer...whatever) and they stand there looking at you instead of dropping to the floor as the power of suggestion would have it, serves as a constant reminder, that if you don't do it right it doesn't work no matter what the Tori or Uke expected.

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

[Van Canna]

Whatever we do in the way of testing should be a fair test for all concerned.

I agree with Evan that any Kyusho testing, any hitting , must be done by a kyusho practitioner so that there will be no room for argument afterwards.

But the person being hit should be none the wiser.

I also agree with Evan that many critics of Kyusho spend lots of time talking about it instead of training with it, then testing it and arguing it.

It's like some, and there are many, who say "Getting hit in the legs? No big deal. Watch my friend kick me in the legs as hard as he can. See? No big deal"

Problem is his friend doesn't know how to "cut deep" with his shin, because he is not conditioned or well trained to angle the "shot" into the target.

But if he were to be tested by a Uechi practitioner, as an example, he wouldn't be so blase about getting kicked.

------------------
Van Canna

[gmattson]

At this point, I'm just exploring possibilities.

I'm fascinated by the idea that a nine year old child could KO a large man with a simple kyusho technique (filmed at one of sensei Pantazi's seminars)and Evan's offer to allow me to KO him with a technique he was going to show me. (Being a cautious person by nature, I declined the offer.)

Over the past few years I've viewed hundreds of KO's on many different websites and although I might be mistaken, I was under the impression that some of these KOs were accomplished by people attending seminars for the first time. If this is so, than certainly it should be possible for a Kyusho instructor to teach an unbiased person how to perform a simple multiple move KO in a reasonable period of time. . . or until the person was able to satisfy the instructor that the move was perfected or that the person was incapable of perfecting it.

I don't wish to see a test performed that Evan or any other kyusho teacher might find unreliable. The teacher who submitted the technique, described the strikes in great detail and submitted a video showing him demonstrating it in an actual KO.

Additionally, he described other symptoms experienced by the Uke prior to the KO. (Sort of a first stage barameter to determine accuracy of the first stage)

We are fortunate in having a number of renowned scientist and physicians attending camp this year. If we are unable to create a test that satisfies the kyusho community and scientific participants, so be it. But I believe our inability will not stop future experimentation and testing. There are too many unanswered questions relating to this art that will eventually be addressed.

I suspect at the very least, our efforts will help future scientist create better tests with better controls.

The kyusho teacher who offered this test believes any coordinated and minimally intelligent person should be able to make it work. (within a reasonable fail rate) If nothing else, we will be able to conclude that even a simple kyusho technique requires more training and experience than can be offered in a single seminar.

Naturally, I would like to invite any kyusho teachers who would like to participate in the setup of the test and/or actual testing, to get involved.

------------------
GEM