It's not about your movelist or your strength. It's

File: wdTbaib.jpg (160KB, 640x473px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 640x473px

>>1040922
Agreed, you don't need to be the strongest, fastest, or have the best cardio. You need to be the better fighter and fighting is the number one way to do it.

I used to be an anime weeb loving loser in middle school, wanted to learn COMPETE in martial arts. Thought i was pretty good and I don't even know why but I thought I was a good fighter.

Went to a Judo gym and got my ass beat. Told myself "well I'm more of a striker anyway" went to a Muay Thai gym and got my ass beat "okay Then... I really can't fight" so I trained in both until I could.

And in my opinion, any and every healthy male who trains in a martial art has to have AT THE VERY LEAST one full contact fight. At the VERY LEAST. Because even training and sparring does not hold a candle to an actual fight.

- intelligence: reaction time, coordination, focus, timing, a bunch of other shit
- knowledge
- reflexes
- technique
- will to win
These things very much more often than not, make a good fighter.

>>1041150
>childish false sense of self confidence
>go to gym
>get ass beat
>striking is more my thing
>go to striking gym
>get ass beat
>finally realizes not good fighter
kek
Nice story, would make a decent short gag anime montage scene.
With exaggerated defeats, exaggerated faces, and everything.

>>1040922
>Stop pretending to be a badass and go out there and fight someone and prove it.
Who are you talking to?
Did somebody make you upset?
You can tell me.

Learning Martial Arts Without A Teacher

It is in fact possible to learn a martial art and effectively apply it without a teacher and or sparring.

A common myth is that one is unable to perceive the flaws on one's movements when mimicking the movements of a martial art, and that a teacher is required to detect these flaws in form and aid in correcting them.
Detecting the flaws in one's form can easily be done with the utilization of attention to detail and a mirror.
It would take some very severe cognitive impairments and or lack of effort to be unable to do this, given that adiquate information is provided.

Another common myth is that muscle memory is required to apply martial arts, and that one would be unable to participate in combat without getting a gluteus maximus kicking.
One reason people believe this myth is because of how much more quickly humans tend to react to a stimuli with muscle memory rather than conscious reaction time. They fail to understand that this in no way means that conscious reaction cannot be utilized. With higher aptitude for reaction time and or training, one who may have never engaged in hand to hand combat will be able to perform as well if not better than one who has trained muscle memory for hand to hand combat, not to mention how muscle memory can be used in combat if trained with proper knowledge and understanding beforehand.

Experience is only as creditable as how it's interpreted.

Not saying that learning with a teacher isn't almost always more efficient.

>>1041259
Yes, it takes a highly dedicated, and intelligent person, with a very detailed and accurate body of knowledge pertaining to martial arts, but these kinds of people don't come by very often, and a large majority of them, even for years to come, wont give enough fucks about martial arts, and it'd be more efficient, unless the person is profoundly, extremely, highly intelligent, to train in methods that would be more efficient for the average or slightly above-average practitioner.

>>1041227
100 percent

>>1041210
within reasonable limits

>>1041315
The average male is athletic and fast enough that speed isn't an issue even against top fighters. Most fighters we consider "fast" Are actually really good in timing. This isn't Pokemon or an anime where some humans are so inhumanly fast or strong that they're beyond being caught by a punch.

Timing is literally the number one thing in fighting above all else.

>inb4 so you're saying stephen hawking can beat up Lyoto Machida by timing his wheelchair commands.

File: 1456277395094.jpg (190KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 450x600px

>>1041259
This is not true. Believe me or not, I have a very high IQ, and education has always been my priority in life, I consider myself a decently intelligent human being. I've read many books, saw many mma fights, dysected them myself, saw training videos, somewhat sparred with other friends of mine to try to implement what I've been "learning" and I thought I was pretty good.

So one day I did a smoker mma fight (that means unsanctioned) and though I won, I saw a huge amount of flaws that a guy like me who's been into martial arts for years, should have never done.

When I finally got a job I payed for my classes in Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, etc. All the way to my early 20s, I couldn't believe just how truly ignorant I was on even the basics when I started taking classes. Being bitch slapped by reality when some guy who's not even a pro but has been doing mma for a couple of years was able to outstrike me and tap me out.

Martial Arts are the collective works of hundreds and thousands of minds over thousands of years. Youd be crazy to believe that you could turn yourself into an effective fighter all by yourself, I don't believe there's been a man in the history of the world who turned himself into an effective fighter by himself except for the guys who are naturally so physically gifted that it can get them by without much technique.

>>1040922

Hell no.

Every serious experienced martial artsist tells you strength make a big difference. I don't know why poeple assume that it's either technique or timing or strength. You need each one of those.

Every serious martial artist, be it Boxing, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ or whatever will tell you that muscles can compensate for technique just like technique can compensate for muscles.

You can chain endless combiantions, but the real champison always had a very small set of "absolutely devastating techniques". If you got these, you can enforce your game on the other guy because either he knows you have these assets, then he has to react to your skills, which makes him defensive and predictable. And if he doesn't know about your skills - even better.


>>1041259

This damn copypasta again..

No, it's NOT possible. Just as a psychologist can't cure himself or a doctor can't operate on himself. Just like masturbating isn't intercourse - surely it feels good but in the end you just fucked yourself.

You need FEEDBACK. You need someone exploiting your weaknesses and correct your mistakes, and this can't be done alone. Losing to someone is incredibly important to get better.

>>1041150

Yeah, martial arts with sparring are excellent to make you humble about your own skill set. People who train without contact often overestimate themselves or are insecure - of course not all, I've met some very nice and humble guys who don't do full contact. But they are few.

>>1042064
>dysected
So close

To your point, though, fighting in 99% of the case is going to require actually sparring or genuinely fighting to improve in a measurable fashion.

So I started kick boxing yesterday, I felt like the only way I was gonna win a fight is by trying to read my opponent, even if I'm bigger than some of them I feel like my hits have no impact due to the lack of technique.

>>1042064
>thinks he's intelligent
>IQ
>doesn't know about psychology
>what is the scientific method
>you'd have to be cray
You're not intelligent enough, you're ignorant, and you're in turn, delusional.

I'm just not going to bother replying to replies to that post anymore.

>>1042311
>I felt like the only way I was gonna win a fight is by trying to read my opponent,
Reflexes.
Reading your opponent is a great skill to have, by all means, but you need to develop reflexes.
Reflexes enforce technique, enforce having the right actions, and enforce defending yourself, all while using a minimal amount of brain power.

Just keep training.

>>1041150
I used to be an anime enthusiast in middle school, also nerd, but not a loser.
I thought I was good, because I was good. Compared to a majority of people, I was a fucking god at fighting.
Why? Because a majority of people have no martial arts training. When you have technique, have done some drills, and even had a few sparring sessions under your belt, you've way above a majority of people in martial arts skill, because they don't have any; the most they have is a general idea about fighting is you hit the person and or try to make them hit the ground.
So, I was a little full of myself, but within reason.

I had my first fight with a relative when I was young, it looked like your primitive street fight haymaker, downward strike, shitty wrestling, a family member and I had a disagreement about something.

I learned martial arts at a young age.
I sparred with toy light sabers with family, and even real swords (mostly drills with the blades, though) at a young age.
I learned Boxing and Kickboxing technique, weapons technique, and Self Defense technique.
I eventually did a few drills here and there.
I'd hit a martial arts dummy a lot.
I eventually did some more Boxing with my cousin, and did some bag work.
This is still in elementary school, mind you.
I sparred with a friend a few times, he was more of a theory-fag.
I wanted to spar with nunchucks and a 3-sectioned staff this one time, but he didn't want to, he probably thought it was too dangerous.
I'd still occasionally mess around with family here and there, hand to hand, sticks, toy lightsabers.

Then, when I got to middle school, that's when I really got to start sparring.
In early middle school, I got my first real wrestling sparring.
It was a slow progression to more sparring, but it was something.
From early high school to mid-high school was the most sparring I've ever had.

1/2or3

>>1041150
>>1043048
From early high school to mid high school was the most sparring I've ever had. I got to spar with formally trained, as well as non formally trained martial arts practitioners. Some were formally trained in some martial arts, while not formally trained in others. Some were mostly self taught with some informal training, or a little bit of formal training. There was a good mix of what kinds of training the people I got to spar with had.
Wrestlers, Boxers, Kickboxers, Karate, etcetera, I sparred with them.
When I sparred with them, I didn't do too bad. Against some, I actually did pretty good.
Wrestling, Boxing, Kickboxing, MMA, we sparred.
I trained with them, and I got better.
After a good amount of time of training, I actually got pretty good, and I got more well rounded.
My training and sparring started to get less frequent, however.
From my senior year to now, I could probably could how many times I've sparred on my fingers. For sure, It's less than my fingers and toes combined, less than 20 times.
Now, during the times I've sparred recently, I've noticed a lot of things. My reflexes aren't as sharp as they used to be. My reaction time isn't as quick as it used to be. Some of my technique has gotten sloppy. My speed, strength, my overall fitness isn't as good as it used to be. I've got chub, someone with good grip could drag me across the room by my belly fat if they wanted to.

It's funny how some seemingly similar people could have vastly different experiences, huh?

>>1041150
>>1043048
>>1043051
THE END

>>1041150
>>1043048
>>1043051
>>1043057

PS: During the later stages of high school, I also passed down some martial arts knowledge to family members, so I got some sparring in there, too.
Boxing, Kickboxing, MMA, stick fighting, self defense, knife fighting, even some Parkour, some sub-groups of the previously mentioned.

>>1042147
>This damn copypasta again..
If you actually took the time to read the post, instead of getting triggered every time, he's actually right.

A majority of people could technically learn martial arts, and therefore gain some skill.
But they just wouldn't be very good, they'd suck.

He goes on to say that a person with a super-genius level of intelligence could actually get good at martial arts by him or herself.
This just can't be proven or disproven.
Science may never prove or disprove it by the end of humanity.

>>1042147
>>1043085
He also has that thing about the very accurate and detailed body of martial arts knowledge, and the intelligence to be able to utilize the knowledge.

To my knowledge, this is a pretty dark unknown grey area of psychology.

Objectively speaking, we just don't know.

>>1043051
>From my senior year to now, I could probably could how many times I've sparred on my fingers. For sure, It's less than my fingers and toes combined, less than 20 times.
Well, maybe.
I don't exactly remember, I don't really keep track of details like when some things happened, it's not really important, but my sparring may have been still dying down around my senior year of high school.

>>1043048
>>1043051
>>1043073
>>1043117

The thing is, I only ever wanted to spar.
Sparring was, and still is, fun.
I just wanted to have fun, sparring was really just playing a game to me.
I just wanted to play.

I'll be joining an MMA once I get some things taken care of, but all I want to do is spar.
That's all I want, I don't want to pay for most of all the other bullshit, I simply just want to play.

Sure, I'll pursue skill, but maybe just out of habit these days, but all I want to do is spar.
Maybe compete just for the fuck of it, I don't really care if I'd lose, because it's fun.

I can't be the only one.

I haven't seen a place where people can get together, lay down some rules, and fight.

That's all I want, really.

Billions of people on the planet, a decent amount of them martial arts practitioners of some form, and I can't find a place like this.

Jack's Sparring Gym
- Boxing
- Various Forms of Kickboxing
- Knockdown Karate
- Muay Thai
- Sanda/Sanshou
- UFC
- Vale Tudo
Bare knuckled, semi-protected, full gear, you name it, we can set it up.
If you want to spar or fight, this is the place.
NO FIGHTS TO THE DEATH, EVER!

1-time fee: $5
All hours available $20 a week.
All hours available monthly $15

Jack's Sparing Gym is not responsible in any way for any injuries or deaths that may take place.
Jack's Sparring Gym encourages safe play, and discourages life threatening actions.
[Waivers MUST be signed before ANY participation]

If only this where a thing, holy shit.

>>1041227
Well said

>>1042607
You should at least try to reply to his point, instead of personal attacks, because I really don't think you have anything for him.

>inb4 same fag

I'm being serious, he made great points. Otherwise, if what he is saying is true, there are so many fat and skelly anime watching nerds out there who could kick Chad Thundercocks ass but just don't because they're "2deadly" lol

>>1043910
See: >>1043085 and >>1043094, and >>1041268


It's not enough to know how to read, you also need to comprehend what you read.

Which is why >>1042064 is low quality bait.

>high IQ
>can't even in to reading comprehension

>>1043910
this is also low quality b8

It's like all the people here were lying about their college educations, and nobody can actually speak English.

>>1043940
>It's like all the people here were lying about their college educations, and nobody can actually speak English.
This is 4chan.
Everybody is an edgy 14 year old.
Nobody has a college education.
Nobody even has a GED.
Nobody actually has high-school level reading comprehension.

>>1040922
>>1041150
>>1041210
>>1041227
>>1041240
>>1041244
>>1041259
>>1041268
>>1041293
>>1041315
>>1042052
>>1042064
>>1042147
>>1042270
>>1042311
>>1042607
>>1042617
>>1043048
>>1043051
>>1043057
>>1043073
>>1043085
>>1043094
>>1043117
>>1043142
>>1043360
>>1043910
>>1043935
>>1043940
>>1043964
Faggots.

>>1043085

>a person with a super-genius level of intelligence could actually get good at martial arts by him or herself

Which is wrong.

Let's start with what an IQ test measures:
It is a matter of fact that you can train for IQ tests and raise your IQ by serveral points within a very short time. Does this mean you got more intelligent? No. We have research about intelligence for about 100 years and still there's no generally accepted theory what the IQ really is. It is generally described as "problem solving capability" or as "ability to understand things", but to this day there discussions about what the IQ includes, or if "intelligence" should rather be split in multiple different variables.

Also intelligence seems to be more like a "necessary condition" than a "sufficient condition". We know that there are geniuses with only "better than average" IQs whereas there are utterly disturbed people/criminals/murderers had an icredibly high IQ. To break it down, there's evidence that you can't be smart without sufficient intelligence, but above that you don't automatically get "twice as smart". It's also about how you train your brain, what input you have. You can sit in a room and study math all day and still fail to get laid. Why? Aren't you "smart" enough? No, you just didn't train necessary skills. "Intelligence" doens't happen in a vacuum, it is part of a complicated system which includes things like emotions, activity level, drives, needs, motives, conditioning, values and unconscious knowledge.

To be honest, I thinks it's misleading to think of a duality of "spirit" and "body" in the first place.

But back to topic:
Let's assume that "intelligence" was the only important trait to acquire knowledge. The it's still a matter of WHAT you learn and HOW MUCH you train. Training alone will make you brilliant at wrong movements. If you never trained to see a jab coming but only "imaginary jabs" you didn't train a proper reaction and develloped necessary skills.

>>1044323
>IQ
>implying
When I or the pasta mention IQ?

>stating facts as if I'm ignorant
I'm offended.
Fuck you, too.

>should rather be split be split in multiple different variables
There are in fact multiple different areas of intelligence, but nether the less, it composes intelligence, a general term. Someone highly intelligent in one area can be equally intelligent to someone moderately intelligent in various areas, we don't need to be able to accurately measure intelligence to know this.

>spirit
>body
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

>the rest
I think I'm getting trolled here

>training alone will make you brilliant at wrong movements
Yeah, I'm getting trolled.

I'm not even arguing that the pasta is right.

It's just so stupid an argument that you have to be trolling.
Because with basic reading comprehension, you'd know what the fuck the pasta is actually portraying.

>>1041259
I'm tired of seeing you shit heads argue about this bullshit.

Learning Martial Arts Without a Teacher: Translated for Idiots or Non-Native English Speakers:

It is possible to learn a martial art and be good at fighting without a teacher or sparring.
Some stupid people think it is not possible for someone to notice they have bad form alone. This is wrong because not every body is stupid, and there are mirrors. You just need to pay attention.

Some stupid people think you absolutely have to have muscle memory or reflexes to be good at martial arts. If you're not stupid and have good reaction time, Someone could use reaction time instead of muscle memory. If someone is smart, and has good reaction time because that person is smart, that person can be good at fighting. If someone is smart in a lot of ways that can be used for being good at fighting, that person can be good at fighting.

Everything is not as it seems, you just need to think about things from a more non emotional and biased perspective.

It's actually, for a large majority of people under a large majority of circumstances, that they actually learn and train with people.

>>1041259
>>1044684

This NEVER states that humans of average intelligence can learn martial arts without a teacher and sparring.

This states that there HAS to be a very DETAILED and ACCURATE body of martial arts knowledge to be utilized.
>if trained with proper knowledge and understanding before hand

>understanding
There HAS to be a certain level of intelligence to be able to use it.
This implies that you can't be an idiot, and you can't be average in intelligence.

The PASTA even goes on to SAY that it's best for a large majority of people, under a large majority of circumstances, to TRAIN AND SPAR!

>>1044323
See: >>1043935, >>1044699, and >>1044684

>>1041259
I'm tired of seeing you shit heads argue about this bullshit.

Learning Martial Arts Without a Teacher: Translated for Idiots or Non-Native English Speakers:

It is possible to learn a martial art and be good at fighting without a teacher or sparring.
Some stupid people think it is not possible for someone to notice they have bad form alone. This is wrong because not every body is stupid, and there are mirrors. You just need to pay attention.

Some stupid people think someone absolutely have to have muscle memory or reflexes to be good at martial arts. If you're not stupid and have good reaction time, Someone could use reaction time instead of muscle memory. If someone is smart, and has good reaction time because that person is smart, that person can be good at fighting. If someone is smart in a lot of ways that can be used for being good at fighting, that person can be good at fighting.

Everything is not as it seems, you just need to think about things from a more non-emotional and non-biased perspective.

It's actually, for a large majority of people under a large majority of circumstances, that they actually learn and train with people.

>>1044323
See: >>1043094, >>1044699, and >>1044737.

>>1044323
>Which is wrong.
There is not sufficient data in psychology, and probably neurobiology as well, to determine whether it is right or wrong, you stupid ass, dumb fucking, cunty shit head, idiotic, fucker.

>>1044792

Sticks and stones.

How about you get out of your cave and start training instead of doing mental gymnastics?

>>1040922

Learning Martial Arts Without A Teacher
>fixed version

It is in fact (citation?) possible to learn a martial art and effectively apply it without a teacher and or sparring.

A common myth (no citation why is it a myth) is that one is unable to perceive the flaws on one's movements when mimicking the movements of a martial art, and that a teacher is required to detect these flaws in form and aid in correcting them.

Detecting the flaws in one's form can easily be done with the utilization of attention to detail (we magically know which details we have to look on) and a mirror.

It would take some very severe cognitive impairments and or lack of effort to be unable to do this, given that adiquate information is provided. (At least that what I think being a non-martial artist).

Another common myth is that muscle memory is required to apply martial arts, and that one would be unable to participate in combat without getting a gluteus maximus kicking. (because classical conditioning is not known to mankind)

One reason people believe this myth (and I have asked them all) is because of how much more quickly humans tend to react to a stimuli with muscle memory rather than conscious reaction time. They fail to understand that this in no way means (at least that what I'm guessing) that conscious reaction cannot be utilized. (well in fact it says exactly that.)

With higher aptitude for reaction time and or training, one who may have never engaged in hand to hand combat will be able to perform as well if not better than one who has trained muscle memory for hand to hand combat (source: opinion), not to mention how muscle memory can be used in combat if trained with proper knowledge and understanding beforehand.

Experience is only as creditable as how it's interpreted. (source: opinion)

Not saying that learning with a teacher isn't almost always more efficient.

>>1044958
>no citation why is it a myth
It's a myth because of the lack of scientific data proving or disproving it.

>we magically know what details we have to look on)
From the original text, you have to pay attention to everything, as well as hold a very detailed body of knowledge on what is right.

>classical conditioning
Care to elaborate?

>and I have asked them all
kek

>at least that's what I'm guessing
It is true for some people, actually, so as a general statement, it is true.

>it says exactly that
What?

>source: opinion
That's actually a fact.
Scientific studies are conducted multiple times, changing various variables, under various circumstances, and peer reviewed for reasons.
One of the reasons is that experience is only as credible as how it's interpreted.

>>1044958
>Experience is only as creditable as how it's interpreted. (source: opinion)
If you want to pull philosophy into this, every single thing is an opinion.
Nothing is a fact.
We can't know anything.

>>1044958
>>1044980
The scientific method exists because experience is only as credible as how it's interpreted.

>>1044958
>>1044980
>>1045017

Pre Scientific Person: I'm going to stick my hand into this pond
*sticks hand into pond
*fish bites hand

Pre Scientific Person: Holy shit! This is awesome! I'm going to keep doing this shit!
* gets 14 more fish

Pre Scientific Person: If I stick my hand in the water, I'll get fish!
*goes to tell a friend

Friend: Are you sure if I stick my hand in the water, I'll get fish?

Pre Scientific Person: yes! I'm sure! It's some good shit!

Friend: Alright! Awesome!
*sticks hand in water
This isn't working...

Pre Scientific Person: Just give it a while.

Friend: Okay...
*fish bites hand
I got one!
Let's go tell Thomas!

Thomas: Alright, what did you two bone what did you bring me over here for?

Pre Scientific Person and Friend: If you stick your hand in the water, you'll get fish!

Thomas: Holy shit, that sounds awesome!
*sticks hand in water
*waits with hand in water
*no fish bites
What the fuck is this bullshit?

Pre Historic Person and Friend: Just give it some time!

Thomas: Geez, okay...
*sticks hand in water
*waits
*not fish
You fucking liars!
Fuck you guys!
Get the fuck back to camp before I fuck your shit up for wasting my fucking time!

>they fished all of the fish
>everybody is too stupid to realize it

Experience is only as credible as how it's interpreted.

>>1045030

>Experience is only as credible as how it's interpreted.

You see, this sentence is just way too vague to give any insights.

"Experience" is nothing more than input data. With good input data it's easy to get good results. If you are total fucking moron you can get bad results.
But if you have bad input data (i.e. never trianing with other people) you can only get mediocre results at best. In science this is called "shit in, shit out".

>>1044980

>It's a myth because of the lack of scientific data proving or disproving it.

You can't just claim that without giving ecidence. Especially not when one sentence later you claim "It is in fact possible to learn (..)".

You need arguments to back your claims up, wether you want to prove or criticize something.

>From the original text, you have to pay attention to everything

But since you have no teacher - how do you know what you have to pay attention to? There's often no "golden rule" but rather recommendations and experiences, like:

"If you move like this I can see what you are trying, it's better to do this first so I don't know what you are up to.."

It's not really factual knowledge.

>Care to elaborate?

Sure:
When a sparring partner punches you in the face you can of course try to "understand" what you did wrong or right. But this kind of thinking is slow and analytical. When you fight and something happens you never experienced you don't have time to think about everything. It's just too many things happening at the same time. You need to be able outsource as many processes on "auto pilot" as possible.

You only get a fraction of a second to recognise a faint or an attack, you body needs to be able to "choose" the right footwork/defense on his own so you can maybe think about "OK, I see an opening here, let's try to counter punch"

Stimulus -> Response


>It is true for some people, actually, so as a general statement, it is true.

That's circular reasoning.
You use your claims as arguments.

>>1045389
>you
>you
>your
>you
I'm the guy claiming we can't know.
I'm saying science lacks the data.
I'm saying humanity lacks the data.

>but since you have no teacher
Please, tell you you're trolling? I want this to be bait.

>>1044980
>detailed body of knowledge
>>1044958
>given that adequate knowledge is provided
>>1044699
>a very DETAILED and ACCURATE body of martial arts knowledge to be utilized
>>1043094
>the knowledge
>>1041268
>a very detailed and accurate body of knowledge pertaining to martial arts
>>1041259
>It would take some very severe cognitive impairments and or lack of effort to be unable to do this, given that adequate information is provided. (GIVEN THAT ADIQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.)

>>1045389

>>1045415 is not claiming what's posted in the pasta is fact.
>>1045415 is clearly saying we CAN'T, know.
Do you know what can't means?

>>1045389
>But this kind of thinking is slow and analytical.
Let's say it is. With a higher level of intelligence, it's theoretically possible to think at a speed which would be adequate to react in time.
But since I'm not claiming that the pasta is fact, and I'm saying we need research and data, stop assuming otherwise.
I'm saying we can't know.
That's all.

>when you fight an something happens you never experience you don't have time to think about everything
See previous.
Also, you don't need to think about everything.
There're a lot of relatively irrelevant things that can be filtered out.

>it's just too many things happening at the same time
I'm starting to think you're just speaking out of your ass.
Have you at least taken Psych 101?

>You need to be able to outsource as many processes on "auto pilot" as possible.
See previous.

We also lack significant scientific data on whether or not human beings, which includes the most intelligent alive, dead, and yet to be born, on whether reflexes can be developed without the experiences.

Mirror neurons, read up on them.
Or not, and just pull shit out of your ass, I'm not saying you're pulling shit out of your ass, but there's some circumstantial evidence building up.

We also lack data on this, but we don't know how well humans can simulate things in their minds, and build reflexes based on them.
We do know that people with psychosis, which includes schizophrenia, "crazy people" can create a world that is not reality within their minds.
The people who "aren't living in our world", "think they're on another world", people who "see things".
Some could say it's like being really high on LSD, or psychoactive drugs, but all the time.
It's possible for the human brain to experience things that aren't happening, but how well someone can consciously do it, we lack significant research.
People don't often train for these things, and we especially lack scientific data.
Psychological, neurobiological, longterm, we lack it.

>>1045415

You're overly agressive and obviously didn't get what I said..

>(GIVEN THAT ADIQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.)

That's like saying:
"It's defiantely possible to pass an exam without learning first, given the wisdom is there."

You understand? You can't have the wisdom without learning it first. And since this text is about "how to learn" we have a nice circular reasoning here.

>>1045420

>Do you know what can't means?

Like the other guy said, we can't know anything. Prove me that I exist or prove the modus ponens.

But if we are looking for wisdom, we must rely on clever arguments or data. Since there were no arguments and since there's not a single savant martial artist that learned to fight all by himself and can fight for shit - I think it's pretty safe to assume this text is utter bullshit.

>>1045389
>That's circular reasoning.
Some people believe that it's true.
Some people believe that it's not true.
People believe that it's true.
People believe that it's not true.

>You youse your claims as arguments
>you
>you
>your
>you
>your
>you
>you
>your

Holy fucking shit, I'm just going to assume your shitposting, because that's some delusional ass bullshit.

You portray, or you're pretending to portray someone who can't read, can't comprehend, lacks information on basic science, lacks information on psychology, lacks information on neurobiology, and talks out of his own fucking ass.
You continue to portray or pretend to portray someone who leaves out information in posts, either out of stupidity, or trolling.

And then there's all of the contradictions and irony.

FUCK 4CHAN!

FUCK EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE OF YOU!

>>1045446
>That's like saying:
>"It's definitely possible to pass an exam without learning first, given that wisdom is there."
No, it really isn't that's why this is bait.
That's why this is shitposting.

It's literally like saying
>You can take a test and pass it as long as you know how to read and you have the book with the answers with you.

That should be enough to be able to consider your posts as bait and shitposting, that should be the nail in the coffin.
That really seals the deal.

Someone formulating these posts yet posting all this bullshit is likely to be a trolling shitposter.

>>1045446
>the rest
This is definitely shitposting.
Decent level trolling, fucker.
Thanks for the ride.

That, or you're just a biased idiot.

>>1045446
>I think it's pretty safe to assume this text is utter bullshit.
It's as bullshit as Theoretical Physics.
We just can't know.

>>1045442

>With a higher level of intelligence, it's theoretically possible to think at a speed which would be adequate to react in time.

Lord, no. This is the worst bro science I ever read. Automatical reaction happen at totally different systems. Also intelligence is about REASONING, it has nothing to do with AUTOMATIC REACTIONS.

>There're a lot of relatively irrelevant things that can be filtered out.

No. It's more about: "if you fail at any of those things you make mistakes the other guy can exploit".

>I'm starting to think you're just speaking out of your ass.
>Have you at least taken Psych 101?

I have studied it, you moron. And I'm doing serveral martial arts.

>Mirror neurons, read up on them.

Oh man, you're killing me. Mirror neurons aren't relevant here, and if anything they would show that you can't train alone. You mirror someone in front of you (i.e for empathy), not yourself.

>People don't often train for these things, and we especially lack scientific data.

We still know a lot of things. And often we don't know exactly, but we can already exclude many theories and have a rough idea about how things go down.

>>1045449
>>1045453
>>1045455
>>1045464

Don't be such a meanie.

>>1045470
>Lord, no. This is the worst bro science I ever read.
Proves you don't actually know what you're talking about.

This is actually part of one of the very most basic parts of the body of knowledge that is understanding intelligence.

Confirmed for talking out of your ass.

>>1045480
I'll try to contain myself next time, babe.