Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Should vs Why
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
In various encounters of late, i've heard a lot of people responding to other people's ideas, not really engaging with the idea, but grabbing onto one piece and saying "you shouldn't do that; you should do this." Statements, not questions. Why do so few people ask "why"? Why do you have this point of view? why do you think making this particular observation is important?
What happened to things that make you go "hmm"?
Is it that we get too comfy in a particular point of view so that we know how to address anything in that space to make it conform to our view, and if it doesn't it's just wrong?
i dunno. i find it somewhat depressing/discouraging that a frequent response is to react rather than to pull back, go up, and ask where's this coming from? do i understand the context? if i'm feeling challenged, defensive, do am i just getting triggered? is this finding a weakness in me?
I guess perhaps in part it gets down to what are our goals in an exchange: what do we want to achieve? is it to engage with an intent to learn? to defend? to communicate?
Community can be built in a number of ways: either by re-inscribing boundaries ( driven perhaps by a little f-scale, a little impostor syndrome [1] mayhap) or by striving (and that does main making a deliberate effort) to push them.
A broad church or a narrow doctrine?
Growth, other than cancer, rarely occurs in a monoculture.
---------------------
[1]thanks Rannoch for the ref Tweet Follow @begin2dig
What happened to things that make you go "hmm"?
Is it that we get too comfy in a particular point of view so that we know how to address anything in that space to make it conform to our view, and if it doesn't it's just wrong?
i dunno. i find it somewhat depressing/discouraging that a frequent response is to react rather than to pull back, go up, and ask where's this coming from? do i understand the context? if i'm feeling challenged, defensive, do am i just getting triggered? is this finding a weakness in me?
I guess perhaps in part it gets down to what are our goals in an exchange: what do we want to achieve? is it to engage with an intent to learn? to defend? to communicate?
Community can be built in a number of ways: either by re-inscribing boundaries ( driven perhaps by a little f-scale, a little impostor syndrome [1] mayhap) or by striving (and that does main making a deliberate effort) to push them.
A broad church or a narrow doctrine?
Growth, other than cancer, rarely occurs in a monoculture.
---------------------
[1]thanks Rannoch for the ref Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Friday, July 18, 2008
Balancing Focus with Diversity with Humility
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There's a great heuristic in nutrition that says to know if we're eating right, get lots of colour on the plate. If it's all monotone shades of white to yellow, then we know there's something - possibly a lot - missing. If it's vibrant in colour and texture, happy days, we're likely hitting all the bases.
In nature, we observe the same thing: we talk about rich ecosystems vs monocultures. Where diversity exists in the system, the ecosystem thrives. Monocultures on the other hand, are far more vulnerable, less able to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity.
In fitness we also apply a kind of diversity towards progress, whether this is swapping around a variety of compound exercises throughout the week, or periodizing the intensity of the day's efforts, variety is important to stave off plateaus or injuries from overuse, etc.
To go back to the nutrition analogy, it seems this same principle of diversity would apply to food for thought: lots of colour on plate means a healthy, nutritious, well balanced diet. That if our intellectual diet is monotonous, singular, lacking diversity, then we are ill nourished. As with monocultures, we are less adaptable; more vulnerable.
And yet while many folks know about nutritional diversity or diversity in their fitness programs, intellecutal diversity seems a foreign concept. I've been struck of late by the number of people who have read either just one book on a topic, or just one author on a subject and speak ex cathedra, as if because of this one book, one author, they now know the field and can proffer opinion. They will defend their corner vigorously, adamantly on the basis of this monoculture of information.
This phenomenon, it seems, is the opposite side of the coin of what sifu mark cheng recently described about RKC's who after the certification, instead of focusing on the basics themselves, and teaching them in strict form, become diversified too quickly, try to bring in too many moves. The consequence that recently manifested itself at an RKCII cert, apparently being that many instructors were not competent to perform the core curriculum.
In this case, we are seeking to master a skill in order to teach it, and so focus and practice practice practice are critical. Rannoch and i have disccused this too: the movement from the repetition of the skill so many times that it's into the bone where its expression becomes art. Will Williams performance of the kettlebell front squat, i've written about, is just so.
In the Tao is the Ten Thousand Things
How resolve on the one hand diversity is critical for health and well being and on the other a singular focus is critical for mastery?
It seems, again to go back to Mark's post, that humility is critical in each case. If we are humble before a topic, we will know that we are pretty ignorant, and need more than one book, one lecture, one web page, to come to grips with area of interest. IF we have read just one thing on a topic, we acknolwedge the source: according to x, this is what's happening, rather than stating "this is what's happening" Why? i teach my students this as basic scholarship: unless you are a recognized expert in a domain, your opinion is just that; an opinion. Why should your readers trust your opinion?
At least if all you have is one source, and you provide your readers that source, they can go check it out for themselves, where they might get more information. what will they get if they come back to you, assuming this is your knowledge, rather than the re-presentation of someone else's? But if all you have is one source, and you engage with someone else who may well have more expertise than you, know more (having read broader and deeper; practiced further and longer), then at least listen, and maybe learn something.
As Mark states in his post:
It's not just that the brown/black belts know more than the blue belt; they have greater mastery of the same things the blue belt knows. The best have worked with many teachers; have studied broadly. Not all at once, but over time.
This still feels like i'm talking about a contradiction:
on the one hand, focus on mastery which means practice on a limited set of things rather than a vast array; on the other hand i'm talking about diversity of knowledge. What keeps coming to my mind is to know when to shut up.
Progress is most often linear.
In school, we learn the basics of math, then of geometry before getting to calculus. The basics are needed before getting to more advanced forms of expression. Once those basics are mastered, conversations can begin with other mathematicians about how problems may be solved. Techniques are shared, new techniques are built upon these; innovations happen. A mathematician interested in one particular problem will read a wide range of papers related to just that one topic. There is the diversity around the singularity, and there is growing expertise.
As another example, in computation, artificial intelligence work is informed by biological systems research, complexity theory and more recently gaming theory from economics. One problem to solve, influenced by multiple perspectives/disciplines.
Likewise, a martial artist who has a devastating punch will likely have studied many techniques from many masters on the punch to distill it into one perfect practice.
In these domains, if we do not have that rich expertise, whether practical or intellectual or both, we would not presume to tell someone else who knew as little or less than ourselves either how to do something or, with confidence, how something works. Our experience is thin; our practice shallow.
What's my point?
I guess that we might do well to own our own limitations better and speak/walk with more humility about our own knowledge/accomplishments. This is perahps why many of us put our credentials on our blogs/sig files, so that people can judge our statements and practice on their merits. Not that these credentials are a guarantee of excellence - hence why most have ongoing renewal/rectification processes. And where certifications do not exist, all the more reason to acknowledge sources and walk with humility, till our work speaks for us.
Clarence Bass is an excellent example of someone who is not a certified expert in health or nutrition: he is an intelligent person who has made his reputation by carefully presenting research in plain language, and checking out findings in one source against those of another; of talking with multiple experts, and from this putting together exceptionally valuable syntheses of this material. It's based on the demonstration of his analyses and syntheses of others' work, and the demonstration of his own practice and insights that has made him a respected expert in the community. He's my hero & inspiration in this regard.
This post all started as a rant about people who seem to have read one book or article and then speak on a topic as if they were experts.
My main point was that knowledge is not so thinnly founded.
Science and Wisdom both demand repetition across diversity before asserting a General Case or Accepted Practice. Do multiple respected sources agree with this position? Where is the disagreement? What are the conditions in which this is true vs where it is not?
My secondary point is that we need to feel unsatisfied with our intellectual fodder if we're interested in a topic and stop at one source - whether that's one book, one author, one site, one monoculture. We need to challenge ourselves to be open to multiple sources on our one topic.
The gift of a good teacher of course is to help chart the progress from the one to the other. The gift of a good student is rich curiosity, with respectful, humble, delightful engagement. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
There's a great heuristic in nutrition that says to know if we're eating right, get lots of colour on the plate. If it's all monotone shades of white to yellow, then we know there's something - possibly a lot - missing. If it's vibrant in colour and texture, happy days, we're likely hitting all the bases.
In nature, we observe the same thing: we talk about rich ecosystems vs monocultures. Where diversity exists in the system, the ecosystem thrives. Monocultures on the other hand, are far more vulnerable, less able to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity.
In fitness we also apply a kind of diversity towards progress, whether this is swapping around a variety of compound exercises throughout the week, or periodizing the intensity of the day's efforts, variety is important to stave off plateaus or injuries from overuse, etc.
To go back to the nutrition analogy, it seems this same principle of diversity would apply to food for thought: lots of colour on plate means a healthy, nutritious, well balanced diet. That if our intellectual diet is monotonous, singular, lacking diversity, then we are ill nourished. As with monocultures, we are less adaptable; more vulnerable.
And yet while many folks know about nutritional diversity or diversity in their fitness programs, intellecutal diversity seems a foreign concept. I've been struck of late by the number of people who have read either just one book on a topic, or just one author on a subject and speak ex cathedra, as if because of this one book, one author, they now know the field and can proffer opinion. They will defend their corner vigorously, adamantly on the basis of this monoculture of information.
This phenomenon, it seems, is the opposite side of the coin of what sifu mark cheng recently described about RKC's who after the certification, instead of focusing on the basics themselves, and teaching them in strict form, become diversified too quickly, try to bring in too many moves. The consequence that recently manifested itself at an RKCII cert, apparently being that many instructors were not competent to perform the core curriculum.
In this case, we are seeking to master a skill in order to teach it, and so focus and practice practice practice are critical. Rannoch and i have disccused this too: the movement from the repetition of the skill so many times that it's into the bone where its expression becomes art. Will Williams performance of the kettlebell front squat, i've written about, is just so.
In the Tao is the Ten Thousand Things
How resolve on the one hand diversity is critical for health and well being and on the other a singular focus is critical for mastery?
It seems, again to go back to Mark's post, that humility is critical in each case. If we are humble before a topic, we will know that we are pretty ignorant, and need more than one book, one lecture, one web page, to come to grips with area of interest. IF we have read just one thing on a topic, we acknolwedge the source: according to x, this is what's happening, rather than stating "this is what's happening" Why? i teach my students this as basic scholarship: unless you are a recognized expert in a domain, your opinion is just that; an opinion. Why should your readers trust your opinion?
At least if all you have is one source, and you provide your readers that source, they can go check it out for themselves, where they might get more information. what will they get if they come back to you, assuming this is your knowledge, rather than the re-presentation of someone else's? But if all you have is one source, and you engage with someone else who may well have more expertise than you, know more (having read broader and deeper; practiced further and longer), then at least listen, and maybe learn something.
As Mark states in his post:
To use a martial arts analogy, it's as if a relatively new blue belt suddenly decides that his bollocks are too big for his belt and he decides to go & pick a fight with a bunch of brown and black belts. The smackdown is comin'.
It's not just that the brown/black belts know more than the blue belt; they have greater mastery of the same things the blue belt knows. The best have worked with many teachers; have studied broadly. Not all at once, but over time.
This still feels like i'm talking about a contradiction:
on the one hand, focus on mastery which means practice on a limited set of things rather than a vast array; on the other hand i'm talking about diversity of knowledge. What keeps coming to my mind is to know when to shut up.
Progress is most often linear.
In school, we learn the basics of math, then of geometry before getting to calculus. The basics are needed before getting to more advanced forms of expression. Once those basics are mastered, conversations can begin with other mathematicians about how problems may be solved. Techniques are shared, new techniques are built upon these; innovations happen. A mathematician interested in one particular problem will read a wide range of papers related to just that one topic. There is the diversity around the singularity, and there is growing expertise.
As another example, in computation, artificial intelligence work is informed by biological systems research, complexity theory and more recently gaming theory from economics. One problem to solve, influenced by multiple perspectives/disciplines.
Likewise, a martial artist who has a devastating punch will likely have studied many techniques from many masters on the punch to distill it into one perfect practice.
In these domains, if we do not have that rich expertise, whether practical or intellectual or both, we would not presume to tell someone else who knew as little or less than ourselves either how to do something or, with confidence, how something works. Our experience is thin; our practice shallow.
What's my point?
I guess that we might do well to own our own limitations better and speak/walk with more humility about our own knowledge/accomplishments. This is perahps why many of us put our credentials on our blogs/sig files, so that people can judge our statements and practice on their merits. Not that these credentials are a guarantee of excellence - hence why most have ongoing renewal/rectification processes. And where certifications do not exist, all the more reason to acknowledge sources and walk with humility, till our work speaks for us.
Clarence Bass is an excellent example of someone who is not a certified expert in health or nutrition: he is an intelligent person who has made his reputation by carefully presenting research in plain language, and checking out findings in one source against those of another; of talking with multiple experts, and from this putting together exceptionally valuable syntheses of this material. It's based on the demonstration of his analyses and syntheses of others' work, and the demonstration of his own practice and insights that has made him a respected expert in the community. He's my hero & inspiration in this regard.
This post all started as a rant about people who seem to have read one book or article and then speak on a topic as if they were experts.
My main point was that knowledge is not so thinnly founded.
Science and Wisdom both demand repetition across diversity before asserting a General Case or Accepted Practice. Do multiple respected sources agree with this position? Where is the disagreement? What are the conditions in which this is true vs where it is not?
My secondary point is that we need to feel unsatisfied with our intellectual fodder if we're interested in a topic and stop at one source - whether that's one book, one author, one site, one monoculture. We need to challenge ourselves to be open to multiple sources on our one topic.
The gift of a good teacher of course is to help chart the progress from the one to the other. The gift of a good student is rich curiosity, with respectful, humble, delightful engagement. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Anti-Goal and First (things First) Principles
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Rannoch the Profound has a post about what happens to folks to scuttle their training:
Rannoch's observation got me wondering if one of the limiting factors that contributes to this OCD training effect is The Goal. This is not to say that goals are bad at all, but they can become mental mine fields when not treated appropriately. The voice in the head becomes:
That's kind of voice sounds irily reminiscent of procrastination/perfectionism. When the goal feels too daunting to achieve well, just leave it to the last minute and blame the fact that you didn't have enough time; or worry worry worry the little details (see "getting intrigued") rather than the big picture. Fear, fear of failure, of therefore being a failure is the thing in either case, and so inertia, it seems, sets in.
Goals have a lot to answer for. In a sense, perhaps, as Stephen Covey might put it, it's a trust issue with ourselves: if we don't meet our commitment to our goals, we break faith with ourselves till we give up on ourselves. Frequently we may coat the cost of this failure by "getting intrigued" (described towards the end of this post on complexity ). Where we say oh this isn't right; that isn't right; i'll do it tomorrow when the moon and the stars are aligned and i feel better.
For myself, this failure can be a particularly trying place to be if i can look back and see past successes, dedication, effort. So what's wrong with me *now* that that's not happening?
Maybe a better question to ask is what needs to be in place to re-establish relations with ourselves to feel that success of having done it than that dread of another day gone and the Goal further dishonored.
Maybe some of us who have already figured out that working out is important for our health, our spirit, our commitments, have to be to get to the headspace where the Real Goal is first to remember how to keep faith with ourselves and second to find a path back to doing that in terms of our fitness, health, well being. Perhaps it's as simple as re-setting the goal temporarily to something we KNOW we can accomplish, perhaps just to move something today. To move ourselves, a kettlebell, a rock - through space, perhaps multiple times in a row or throughout the day, and that that *is* a good thing, not only because it really *is* better than nothing, but because we said we would and we did.
Progressively, repeatedly, soon, the groove to that larger goal may just return, when we build our own confidence back up that we can keep our commitments to ourselves and we can trust ourselves with larger challenges.
In the interim, while simply keeping the commitment to move something in a day, we can give ourselves the space to figure out what may be acting in our lives right now such that we've been falling off the wagon; over complicating it, and what perhaps NOT to repeat once we get back in the groove such that we wind up back in the pit - if that's a recurring place to be.
A book i find helpful in this space is Stephen Covey's First Things First. The book talks about the importance of understanding why we *do* things, not in terms of some schedule like life as a perpetual to do list, but in order to define and move from principles. Don't prioritize your schedule; schedule your priorities is a phrase from the book. How do we determine our priorities? Based on what principles? what is our compass?
These questions apply here, in working out, too, i think. If we're not doing what we know to be right and good for our well being, and our ability to serve those we love, then something's askew, no?
Asking such questions can be a rather profound process. Covey suggests a number of ways to engage what can be very challenging work, where not working out is a symptom whose more profound causes may need investigation.
But in this meantime of engaging that process, and assuming that part of it may just be this loss of faith with ourselves to follow through on our commitments to ourselves, here's to everyone who's having a moment of doubt and self criticism. Let's give ourselves a break and all promise to do one push up, one swing, one pistol - one something - together in five minutes, and build on that.
Congratulations to us, we did it. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
You are trying get moving, not launch a rocket.
So many people seem to struggle with this. If the conditions aren't optimal they simply abort.
Give me 10 minutes and a kettlebell. Not so hard.
For those with workout OCD, it stops progress in it's tracks. The requirement to have everything in it's proper place prevents them from so much as breaking a sweat. This anabolic anxiety permeates everything they try to do. Plans are great but if you are fixated on a having all the ingredients for particular outcome you are missing "all that heavenly glory".
Rannoch's observation got me wondering if one of the limiting factors that contributes to this OCD training effect is The Goal. This is not to say that goals are bad at all, but they can become mental mine fields when not treated appropriately. The voice in the head becomes:
I *have* to do this kind of workout today because of this GOAL i have for date X, and if i can't train that way because of whatever (including just being pooped) then what's the point? anything "less" than the prescribed load, volume and moves is just failure (to serve teh goal), so why bother? I'm such a loser, aren't i?
That's kind of voice sounds irily reminiscent of procrastination/perfectionism. When the goal feels too daunting to achieve well, just leave it to the last minute and blame the fact that you didn't have enough time; or worry worry worry the little details (see "getting intrigued") rather than the big picture. Fear, fear of failure, of therefore being a failure is the thing in either case, and so inertia, it seems, sets in.
Goals have a lot to answer for. In a sense, perhaps, as Stephen Covey might put it, it's a trust issue with ourselves: if we don't meet our commitment to our goals, we break faith with ourselves till we give up on ourselves. Frequently we may coat the cost of this failure by "getting intrigued" (described towards the end of this post on complexity ). Where we say oh this isn't right; that isn't right; i'll do it tomorrow when the moon and the stars are aligned and i feel better. For myself, this failure can be a particularly trying place to be if i can look back and see past successes, dedication, effort. So what's wrong with me *now* that that's not happening?
Maybe a better question to ask is what needs to be in place to re-establish relations with ourselves to feel that success of having done it than that dread of another day gone and the Goal further dishonored.
Maybe some of us who have already figured out that working out is important for our health, our spirit, our commitments, have to be to get to the headspace where the Real Goal is first to remember how to keep faith with ourselves and second to find a path back to doing that in terms of our fitness, health, well being. Perhaps it's as simple as re-setting the goal temporarily to something we KNOW we can accomplish, perhaps just to move something today. To move ourselves, a kettlebell, a rock - through space, perhaps multiple times in a row or throughout the day, and that that *is* a good thing, not only because it really *is* better than nothing, but because we said we would and we did.
Progressively, repeatedly, soon, the groove to that larger goal may just return, when we build our own confidence back up that we can keep our commitments to ourselves and we can trust ourselves with larger challenges.
In the interim, while simply keeping the commitment to move something in a day, we can give ourselves the space to figure out what may be acting in our lives right now such that we've been falling off the wagon; over complicating it, and what perhaps NOT to repeat once we get back in the groove such that we wind up back in the pit - if that's a recurring place to be.
A book i find helpful in this space is Stephen Covey's First Things First. The book talks about the importance of understanding why we *do* things, not in terms of some schedule like life as a perpetual to do list, but in order to define and move from principles. Don't prioritize your schedule; schedule your priorities is a phrase from the book. How do we determine our priorities? Based on what principles? what is our compass?
These questions apply here, in working out, too, i think. If we're not doing what we know to be right and good for our well being, and our ability to serve those we love, then something's askew, no?
Asking such questions can be a rather profound process. Covey suggests a number of ways to engage what can be very challenging work, where not working out is a symptom whose more profound causes may need investigation.
But in this meantime of engaging that process, and assuming that part of it may just be this loss of faith with ourselves to follow through on our commitments to ourselves, here's to everyone who's having a moment of doubt and self criticism. Let's give ourselves a break and all promise to do one push up, one swing, one pistol - one something - together in five minutes, and build on that.
Congratulations to us, we did it. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Friday, July 4, 2008
Complexity is not Evil
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Over at dragondoor, an RKC colleague recently posted a quote from Dave Tate, powerlifter (and precision nutrition practitioner) extraordinaire.
Mike Johnson, RKC Posted:
Mike Johnson nicely frames the application of this sentiment in terms of training, but even there, where one might think a training program is "simple" rather than complex, this really raised the question for me, what is the difference between complexity and simplicity? Are we selling complexity short? And what about the assertion that it is "the simple things that lead to greatness" - in what context? according to who and whose army?
For instance, getting to e=mc2 - which is simple in its expression, elegant and powerful - took a whole lot of wrestling with very complex math. The path to e=mc2 was messy, complex, but necessary to arrive.
Would anyone argue therefore that "application of the complex" in such a case "leads to confusion" - rather than ultimate clarity? Surely there is nothing wrong with working through difficult, challenging problems that require the application of multiple strategies, approaches, levels of sophistication and complexity?
The end result may be perceived as again elegant simple beautiful, but the path to getting there is just as often messy - what one might call "complex."
Mr. Tate's statement may be grounded in his experience in the iron game where getting one with the Pavel-like approach to focus on a few things and do them well has been shown to be an effective approach to training. And, as noted, this is exactly the context in which Mike Johnson situates the statement's applicability.
Indeed, Steven Covey in the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People asks the question: what is the one thing that you know that if you did it extremely well you know you could make a difference? The one thing you *know* how to do, that doing would make a difference.
How do we get to this one or few things that can be *applied* to make a difference?
Usually it's because someone has either developed a template or deliberately constructed a set of heuristics they can provide to say "for this problem, follow this and you'll get results." But indeed, is always knowing which template will lead to which results simple? or are the complexities in accounting for messy variables to determine the optimal approach?
Heuristics: Rules of Thumb
So how do we get from the messy, the complex, to these templates or heuristics? Heuristics are the outcome and encapsulation of what has taken sometimes incredibly complex and ingenious efforts to determine. That we have so many things we can just APPLY, from westside templates to cartesian geometry is because others have done the work to invent, verify, refine and so on.
Getting Intrigued vs Engaging Compexity
Creativity is messy; it's complex; its extraordinary; it can rarely initially be well tied up into a heuristic for direct application.
i understand the sentiment about simplicity: that in APPLICATION, where there are known and elegant solutions, people can get hung up in over-complicating things and wind up getting nowhere. But i'm not sure that the fault lies with complexity per se, but rather that it *looks* like something that's complex (what i call "getting intrigued") when actually it's lack of commitment or discipline to really get down with the hard work necessary to address the problem. I can see this procrastination/perfectionism/read one more article consider one more twist in students (and at times in myself) where thrashing about is not a sign of engaging rich complexity, but is a sign of getting overly intrigued - rather than getting to it. Why people get intrigued rather than get to work is a whole other topic.
Celebrate the Messy, Too
So why not embrace the messy, the challenging, the complex, too? to boldly go, as it were, to split the infinitive with intent; to ask questions and not be afraid of the hard graft it can take to work through the gnarly problem? Not *all* hard work is as simple as the Nike slogan "either you ran today or you didn't"- The intent and the act might be seen as simple there. Did you work on your thesis today or didn't you - where the work is tough, complex, demanding of a whole different set of problem solving skills - may be reduced to either you did the work or you didn't, but the work is more complex than did i pick it up and put it down several times. We engage such complexity at various stages for training, too, to get to the right way to pick up and put down that thing we swing.
Kenneth Jay's VO2 Max Snatch Protocol: from the Complex to the Simple
In the training space, an example of engaging the complex to get to an applicable heuristic is kenneth Jay's VO2max Snatch protocol.
THis protocol did not come out of hacking around with a kettlebell. It's based on the science of how the body works; of how energy systems adapt to interval training. Of understanding physiologically how to optimize full body effect with the stroke of the snatch to improve lactic acid threshold. It's based on a knowledge of being able to engage and critique the protocols (like Tabatta) of what's gone before. It's based on testing hypotheses based on this science, and then refining, applying, refining again.
We happily receive this protocol (a) because we trust Kenneth (b) because people we respect trust Kenneth (c) because he can show results (d) others testify to those results and (e) for some of the rest of us, because of all the science that's gone into it, it makes sense.
It should be noted here that while some of science is hacking trial and error in the experimental process, the hacking around, trial and error of most good experiments is first based on working through the related research, engaging with it, synthesizing it, analyzing where the gaps are, proposing possible solutions, and in particular trying to scope down and limit the amount of hacking, trial and error around how to demonstrate that the hypothesis you have is correct. When papers are submitted for peer review, the question reviewers will ask is does the experiment actually prove/support the hypothesis?
Principle based AND messy. Complex to get to heuristic.
While i celebrate the elegant and value the heuristic - here's the technique for a great swing, you can just do it without having to understand the mechanics - there seems no point in shunning the truly complex, as opposed to the gratuitously intrigued. Knowing how these energy systems work, or how the biomechanics of a lift comes into play, for instance, sure, adds a level of complexity, but that enriches rather than occludes the Elegant Path, does it not? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Mike Johnson, RKC Posted:
"Mastery of the simple things leads to greatness. Application of the complex leads to confusion. Yet, 90% will jump at the complex for the solutions to our problems. What's interesting is the most complex things are external, while all the simple things are internal."
- Dave Tate
There is an article by Tate at www.t-nation.com This quote from the article really hits home on the training front.
Mike Johnson nicely frames the application of this sentiment in terms of training, but even there, where one might think a training program is "simple" rather than complex, this really raised the question for me, what is the difference between complexity and simplicity? Are we selling complexity short? And what about the assertion that it is "the simple things that lead to greatness" - in what context? according to who and whose army?
For instance, getting to e=mc2 - which is simple in its expression, elegant and powerful - took a whole lot of wrestling with very complex math. The path to e=mc2 was messy, complex, but necessary to arrive.
Would anyone argue therefore that "application of the complex" in such a case "leads to confusion" - rather than ultimate clarity? Surely there is nothing wrong with working through difficult, challenging problems that require the application of multiple strategies, approaches, levels of sophistication and complexity?
The end result may be perceived as again elegant simple beautiful, but the path to getting there is just as often messy - what one might call "complex."
Mr. Tate's statement may be grounded in his experience in the iron game where getting one with the Pavel-like approach to focus on a few things and do them well has been shown to be an effective approach to training. And, as noted, this is exactly the context in which Mike Johnson situates the statement's applicability.
Indeed, Steven Covey in the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People asks the question: what is the one thing that you know that if you did it extremely well you know you could make a difference? The one thing you *know* how to do, that doing would make a difference.
How do we get to this one or few things that can be *applied* to make a difference?
Usually it's because someone has either developed a template or deliberately constructed a set of heuristics they can provide to say "for this problem, follow this and you'll get results." But indeed, is always knowing which template will lead to which results simple? or are the complexities in accounting for messy variables to determine the optimal approach?
Heuristics: Rules of Thumb
So how do we get from the messy, the complex, to these templates or heuristics? Heuristics are the outcome and encapsulation of what has taken sometimes incredibly complex and ingenious efforts to determine. That we have so many things we can just APPLY, from westside templates to cartesian geometry is because others have done the work to invent, verify, refine and so on.
Getting Intrigued vs Engaging Compexity
Creativity is messy; it's complex; its extraordinary; it can rarely initially be well tied up into a heuristic for direct application.
i understand the sentiment about simplicity: that in APPLICATION, where there are known and elegant solutions, people can get hung up in over-complicating things and wind up getting nowhere. But i'm not sure that the fault lies with complexity per se, but rather that it *looks* like something that's complex (what i call "getting intrigued") when actually it's lack of commitment or discipline to really get down with the hard work necessary to address the problem. I can see this procrastination/perfectionism/read one more article consider one more twist in students (and at times in myself) where thrashing about is not a sign of engaging rich complexity, but is a sign of getting overly intrigued - rather than getting to it. Why people get intrigued rather than get to work is a whole other topic.
Celebrate the Messy, Too
So why not embrace the messy, the challenging, the complex, too? to boldly go, as it were, to split the infinitive with intent; to ask questions and not be afraid of the hard graft it can take to work through the gnarly problem? Not *all* hard work is as simple as the Nike slogan "either you ran today or you didn't"- The intent and the act might be seen as simple there. Did you work on your thesis today or didn't you - where the work is tough, complex, demanding of a whole different set of problem solving skills - may be reduced to either you did the work or you didn't, but the work is more complex than did i pick it up and put it down several times. We engage such complexity at various stages for training, too, to get to the right way to pick up and put down that thing we swing.
Kenneth Jay's VO2 Max Snatch Protocol: from the Complex to the Simple
In the training space, an example of engaging the complex to get to an applicable heuristic is kenneth Jay's VO2max Snatch protocol.
THis protocol did not come out of hacking around with a kettlebell. It's based on the science of how the body works; of how energy systems adapt to interval training. Of understanding physiologically how to optimize full body effect with the stroke of the snatch to improve lactic acid threshold. It's based on a knowledge of being able to engage and critique the protocols (like Tabatta) of what's gone before. It's based on testing hypotheses based on this science, and then refining, applying, refining again.
We happily receive this protocol (a) because we trust Kenneth (b) because people we respect trust Kenneth (c) because he can show results (d) others testify to those results and (e) for some of the rest of us, because of all the science that's gone into it, it makes sense.
It should be noted here that while some of science is hacking trial and error in the experimental process, the hacking around, trial and error of most good experiments is first based on working through the related research, engaging with it, synthesizing it, analyzing where the gaps are, proposing possible solutions, and in particular trying to scope down and limit the amount of hacking, trial and error around how to demonstrate that the hypothesis you have is correct. When papers are submitted for peer review, the question reviewers will ask is does the experiment actually prove/support the hypothesis?
Principle based AND messy. Complex to get to heuristic.
While i celebrate the elegant and value the heuristic - here's the technique for a great swing, you can just do it without having to understand the mechanics - there seems no point in shunning the truly complex, as opposed to the gratuitously intrigued. Knowing how these energy systems work, or how the biomechanics of a lift comes into play, for instance, sure, adds a level of complexity, but that enriches rather than occludes the Elegant Path, does it not? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
