Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussions' started by Alwi, Jun 1, 2013.
Your Veruca Salt costume wasn't much of a success that year, was it?
No it wasn't, but the after-party with the Oompa Loompas was FANTASTIC!
My take/evaluation of intelligence correlation to fighting. The statement of "Martial" arts and the application of tactics and strategies definitely lends to the intelligent. But straight hand to hand... is a little different and depends on conditioning (reactive)... and what is at stake. I see the following behaviors in class:
- In much maligned forms (Poomse, Kata)... you can apply this to fighting and controlled sparring.
I see three kinds of people
1. Type 1 - move right through them brainlessly and without hesitation because they don't think about them, or their application... simply motions... they seldom forget their forms
2. Type 2 - think about every move from memory; tend to hesitate and forget
3. Type 3 - are thinkers, but have learned to picture opponents movements and reactions in direct application to the use
There might be a fourth type, as a progression to Type 1, where they learn to picture and think about their motion... but I question this as a maturity item... and if they actual start engaging their intelligence... not sure. That would really make them Type 3.
Type three is highly superior in application.
Most leaders of discussion on the topic state that OODA loop is too slow... so straight reaction when fighting is best. My point would state that if all is equal in reaction capability and level of training... I would choose smart: Sugar Ray, Ali, etc... they "rope-a-dope"d for a reason.. as it causes confusion... and I believe they, by example even in their speaking and vocabulary, were typically above other fighters in intelligence. Foreman... great fighter, changed orthodox (defense), great business man.
Smart people tend not to want to get hurt when stakes are low.
Stupid people can continue on past when they should because they don't think about the ramifications... BUT for given situations... this is an advantage to the stupid. They can be more dangerous. And in well controlled situations they can try harder.
If truly driven, the motivated, emotional, intelligent person, though... is the most dangerous. They don't care about the ramifications. Unlike the stupid person who doesn't think about it, the intelligent... puts it to the side on purpose.
This is a combination of will and intelligence. The stupid will have will, but with equal will... the stupid will never be able to think like the intelligent.
Hard work will always beat talent, when talent refuses to work hard....
I don't think intelligence - however we choose to describe it, book learning/natural gifts/innate qualities - is a hinderance to martial arts. In some ways, it may help - an intelligent person may be stuck on a move or procedure and be able to a.)read up on many books and distill the necessary information to get it (book learning); figure out his certain own way to get the move in addition to what his instructor said using his natural advantages (natural gifts) or just get it in a blinding flash of insight that's not what his instructor saidbut works anyway (innate qualities).
But given two people, equal in every way such as training, dedication, attitude, practice, age, flexibility and belt level: Would the more intelligent one has any kind of advantage in a purely physical fight?
I would have to say no. They may be able to do OTHER things that would give them an advantage - perhaps use the environment to a better advantage, or know just when the situation goes from annoyance to LEGAL self defense. But a pure, rules based tournament style match? I don't see one.
Given the conditions you've postulated (always wanted to actually use that in a sentence), two identical fighters with identical skills in a "rules based tournament style match"?
Wouldn't the winner be the fighter most able to conceive and carry out a winning strategy, and therefore the one with the higher level of “native intelligence”?
Unless of course you don't believe that strategy can be a factor in a match, or on the street for that matter.
You have to remember, most martial artists don't progress for long enough to analyze, formulate and test strategies against others by watching their behaviors. Others includes arts, opponents (if competing), etc.
I added 'attitude' as a similarity to cover styles, which I took include basic strategy - 50% offensive, 50% defensive, move a lot, what have you.
But dropping that definition, which I didn't make clear, I'm still not sure. Intelligence doesn't necessarily equalgood strategic planning - not all high IQ people are good at chess, or bridge, or poker. If you mean native intelligence in the idea of a natural at fighting, to me, that's not the thrust of the original question - ANYONE who has a natural talent at fighting will have the advantage over anyone else, given everything else the same level.
Maybe its about how you define Intelligence. Is it Intelligence if you are smart enough to see that taking on a particular opponent would be way out of your league? Or that another opponent is all boast and bluster? Or the opponent after that is setting you up?
I think its more about street smarts than book smarts. Book smarts means you may be able to pick up a certain concept or application quicker than the guy next to you. But Street smarts is knowing when there is a good time to uswe it and when there is not.
I am no expert regarding IQ. However, what I can say are these based on my experience:
1. When a person come to Dojo with the correct "picture" of Martial Art s/he is about to learn, s/he will have advantages when compared to somebody else who come to the Dojo with incorrect "picture" of the said Martial Art.
Example: a small dude goes to Karate Dojo with mental picture of Karate in his mind as some sort of brutal art that is able to kill opponent should the situation dictates. He recognized that Karate is a Martial Art and NOT a sport although sometimes you can make sport out of it. He wants to learn Karate because he likes the idea of angry Japanese man destroying everything in his path. This small dude will have advantage over a big dude who goes to the Dojo because he wants to "score points" or because his mum told him to.
2. Martial Art is about overcoming your limitation as much as overcoming you opponent. Anybody who has more will power and more militaristic attitude usually has the upper hand in the end.
Example: flexible ballerina-like Karateka likes to dance around and throwing high kicks. Yet a short, stocky, stiff as hell Karateka with proper intent to break "someone's" leg (probable this dancing Karateka) and couldn't care less about being disqualified will have the advantage.
Intelligence and fighting are both relative anyhow. Someone who does Aikido has won the minute they step though the door!
I would say that that is more "conformity" than "intelligence" ...
Actually if it is actual FIGHTING one is after the Justu Arts are over and above the Do Ways (as defined in the Japanese language) in that arena simply because that is what they are designed to do. I have studied and concentrated on the Jutsu Arts over the years as opposed to the Do Ways because my concern and thrust was lethality and the warrior way. Included in the Jutsu's are also the internal growth portions of the Martial arts that one usually seeks the Do's for. My interest was not to learn how to concentrate on sparing for tournaments or as a sport, those were further from my interest as any thing could be. I usually taught hand to hand COMBAT instead of self defense in my classes, when I taught Tang Soo Do, Toyama Ryu and Jujutsu at the Claremont Colleges in California, among the students my classes were called body dis-assembly 101.
This is such a common misconception. There is no set score that determines a genius level IQ.
The real determining factor is the percentile, i.e. To obtain a score on any recognised testing method that places you in the top two percentile.
So for myself, I sat the Cattell test and would have needed to score 148 to make it into the top two percentile. If I transferred my scores directly over to the Ravens Standard method, my score would have been around 120. Each and every test method has it's own scoring system and no one test method is recognised over the other, making your percentile score the determining factor.
So if someone ever says to you, "Hey, I've got an IQ of 120." , if you really knew what you were talking about you would know that the best response would be, "Wow, that's great! On which system were you being tested?"
Because 120 is meaningless without knowing where it places you in terms of percentile. A 120 on this or that test is a 130 or 140 on another.
"Hey, I've got an IQ score in the top 3 percentile." would be a better way to phrase the statement. If they respond with "So, what score did you get?" , you should respond with "120 on the Ravens standard."
Most people don't know the difference, so like most people, I just say the score and let people think what they like. Ignorance is bliss for some
Some recognised test methods and the scores needed to make it into the top two percentile.
Cattell III B - 148
Culture Fair - 132
Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135
Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
Wechsler Scales - 132
And I said "140 is a genius category entry point on the curve"... so explain to me statistically... by using your above listed 98th percentile knee points... how, what I stated, is inaccurate.
The mean if these would be 136... I do not know the frequency of their application in measure... blah, blah, blah... and blah, blah, blah...
You are splitting hairs Dave, and I was making a generality with attempted humor... that he was at the entry point to Genius by this measurement, and kidding that maybe we should re-check that because he didn't know it.
Precision and accuracy... precision and accuracy.
I bow to your details.
Sorry if this was meant rhetorically, but, it's inaccurate because on the Cattell test which I was referring to a score of less than 148 is below the cut off mark for making it into the top two percentile. If your going to work out an average entry score then that also needs to be applied to my score over all the different test methods.
The example was given here...
Without actually sitting all the tests I can't accurately tell you what my average or mean score would be, but I can tell you categorically that it would be less than your mean score of 136.
100 / 148 = .6756
136 x .6756= 91.88 (rounded up to 92%)
136 x 92% = 125.12
So if 136 was your mean baseline entry, then my score would be around the 125 mark.
To be blunt, I read and re-read your comment at least half a dozen times over the last few days and in the end couldn't decide if your humour was meant good naturedly or not. So I avoided that aspect of it altogether and stuck to 'just the facts' or details as you put it.
What I meant in my original post, was that no matter how high my test results, it would still never make me a genius as I reckon the meaning. Because for me true genius is more than just a test result.
It's Archimedes, Mozart, Newton, Shakespeare, Faraday, Galileo, Da Vinci, Hawking, Tesla, Einstein and the unknown super genius who first thought to try fermented fruit like wild animals and then figured out how to reproduce that effect consistently, thereby evolving into BEER!
Where as I can't even remember that stupid rule about i before e except when c is......whatever
Stupid English language
Give me a maths or spatial problem to solve anyday...
It was meant to be good natured, but I am too dry sometimes.
Look, I do appreciate the detail... knew there were multiple standards... but was unaware of their specifics.
I agree 1000%... and yes, that is a joke... (the number, not the agreement).
I relate in more ways than you know... to your whole posting line.
This would be a much better/enjoyable conversation over a few pitchers of beer.
Anyone who believes all the lies they pump about intelligence is really the bigger fool than i. Emotional intelligence, now that's where it's at! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emotional-I...eywords=emotional+intelligence+daniel+goleman
Separate names with a comma.