"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
KMAN wrote:
"Steve Cramer" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote
My part in the discussion came about because I felt that opinions were
being expressed to suggest that one cannot learn to kayak without
professional instruction.

Who ever said such a thing? Could you please quote that post? Mike has
been pretty clear that instruction is a good thing, and you have been
pretty clear on the opposite sentiment, that it's better to figure out
things on your own.

In another thread you said "The common assumption is often that
learning
is something to rush through in order to arrive at enjoyment. Well, if
you
like sex that last about 30 seconds, then I guess that's the right
philosophy! Personally I find the journey is just as important as the
destination, and that goes for paddling too :-) " and "Learning is
exciting. The problem is some people think it is something to
avoid or get past as quickly as possible. "

That's rather far from my ideas. I'll suggest a couple a things that I
believe, that you apparently don't.

1. Knowledge and skill are beter than ignorance. We begin every new
activity in a state of ignorance. Most people do in fact choose to get
past that state fairly rapidly, because...

2. Activities pursued skillfully are more fun than those pursued
clumsily.
This is certainly true for boating. Being able to place the boat where
you
want it, to play, to surf: that's great fun. More fun than just
floating
down the river because you don't know how to paddle skillfully.

You are falling into the same trap of assuming that learners who do not
hire
professionals to teach them are incapable of advancing beyond floating
down
the river. Thus my participation in this thread, as this is wholly
untrue.

"Learning is exciting," you say, which is certainly true, but then you
say
"some people think it is something to avoid or get past as quickly as
possible." You NEVER get past learning. All the same, I can't imagine
anyone saying, as you seem to, "I'm in no hurry to get skillful; I'd
like
to remain ignorant and clumsy as long as possible."

I've said no such thing. I've been trying to explain that people can and
to
become skillful without professional instructino. I think I've been
pretty
clear about that. Maybe take a read through again.

Human history shows, pretty clearly, that the human mind, in a cultural
vacuum, can't teach itself much of anything. All human knowlege and
progress has been a process of accretion, of building upon the
discoveries of the many who have gone before. Newton wouldn't have
invented the calcucus if he hadn't algebra and trigonometry in his back
packet, eh?

When you say a person can teach himself to paddle, you are correct to a
degree: he can distill all the books and films he has seen on the
subject, or noticed occuring on a lake as he drives by, to get some
sense of the basic idea, then he can experiment to refine that idea in
the face of ugly reality -- the boat does NOT float straight and swift
in the direction the paddler wills -- until he can achieve something
acceptable. But without the prior concept of how a canoe or kayak is
supposed to behave, an innocent human would not know to keep trying
different things until he achieved successful boat control. So, in a
sense, no-one in the 21st century has the opportunity to teach himself
from scratch.

Ridiculous. You mean you think that someone who has never seen or heard of a
boat before paddling on one side only and going in circles would just give
up and say "Oh well?" You don't think they might try paddling on both sides?

The way knowlege works is that the discoveries -- the little "better
ways" -- of many people -- are gathered up and integrated by scholars
of the subject (or, in our case, the practioners of the sport) who
share their collected wisdom with one another, and eventually compile a
cononical "best way" to do a thing (understand, this is not necessarily
the *actual* best way, but it is usually a pretty darned good way, and
until a Dick Fosbury comes along, is usually the best way known). Then
these scholars turn around and teach it back to the masses. IOW, the
zillion tiny discoveries that trickle up from the masses to the
"scholars" are then organized, integrated, and passed back down, as
"instruction".

Sure, anyone can go out and struggle, and maybe have fun on a lake or
river. But people who take the trouble to engage an instructor to pass
over this accretion of knowlege will forever laugh at those trying to
"reinvent the wheel". We look at you flailing down the river the way
we look at George W. Bush when he claims "I don't believe in global
warming" or "intelligent design is valid science;" we sneer at willful
ignorance. But we don't necessarily sneer at people who aren't
interested in becoming serious boaters, but merely wish to splash, or
fish, or lollygag around in a boat.

The pompous and arrogant assumption is that the self-taught practioner will
only ever be capable of paddling in a pond or arm-paddling. This simply
isn't always true, not in kayaking, and not in other sports.

Those who become truly skillful without professional instruction only
do so by watching other people who *have* had such instruction, and
enulating them.

Balderdash.

They're not working it out for themselves from
scratch, I guarantee you. One might say they are freeloading on those
who do choose to support an infrastructure of "professionals".

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

Well, as humans we are constantly adjusting what we do and say based on our
observations and interactions with others. But the idea that the world is
all about non-profressionals free-loading on professionals is total hogwash.
In the case of most of academia, it is rather the opposite. People are out
doing things - oblivious to the existence of academics and their work - and
the academics then write about what is happening and seek credit, fame and
fortune for their brilliant observations of the life that is happening
beyond the ivory tower.

"Roger Houston" wrote in message
...

"KMAN" wrote in message
news

My part in the discussion came about because I felt that
opinions were being expressed to suggest that one cannot learn
to kayak without professional instruction.

As the guy who started the whole thing by asking why the
subject boat was hard for a "beginner" to control, I must
express my sincerest apologies for ever having posted. The
group seems to be wound fairly tightly, with a few pretty
helpful people and a bunch of people with a lot of
free-floating hostility.

Most of the "paddling" that goes on here is on one another's
butts.

Anyone on here have a canoe? ===============================
Yep, several...

Mad River Courier
Sawyer Cruiser and Autumn Mist
Old Town Discovery

Just got back this weekend from a short trip in Ontario.

see trip report here
http://home.earthlink.net/~canoenorth/misaibi.htm

KMAN wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
KMAN wrote:
"Steve Cramer" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote
My part in the discussion came about because I felt that opinions were
being expressed to suggest that one cannot learn to kayak without
professional instruction.

Who ever said such a thing? Could you please quote that post? Mike has
been pretty clear that instruction is a good thing, and you have been
pretty clear on the opposite sentiment, that it's better to figure out
things on your own.

In another thread you said "The common assumption is often that
learning
is something to rush through in order to arrive at enjoyment. Well, if
you
like sex that last about 30 seconds, then I guess that's the right
philosophy! Personally I find the journey is just as important as the
destination, and that goes for paddling too :-) " and "Learning is
exciting. The problem is some people think it is something to
avoid or get past as quickly as possible. "

That's rather far from my ideas. I'll suggest a couple a things that I
believe, that you apparently don't.

1. Knowledge and skill are beter than ignorance. We begin every new
activity in a state of ignorance. Most people do in fact choose to get
past that state fairly rapidly, because...

2. Activities pursued skillfully are more fun than those pursued
clumsily.
This is certainly true for boating. Being able to place the boat where
you
want it, to play, to surf: that's great fun. More fun than just
floating
down the river because you don't know how to paddle skillfully.

You are falling into the same trap of assuming that learners who do not
hire
professionals to teach them are incapable of advancing beyond floating
down
the river. Thus my participation in this thread, as this is wholly
untrue.

"Learning is exciting," you say, which is certainly true, but then you
say
"some people think it is something to avoid or get past as quickly as
possible." You NEVER get past learning. All the same, I can't imagine
anyone saying, as you seem to, "I'm in no hurry to get skillful; I'd
like
to remain ignorant and clumsy as long as possible."

I've said no such thing. I've been trying to explain that people can and
to
become skillful without professional instructino. I think I've been
pretty
clear about that. Maybe take a read through again.

Human history shows, pretty clearly, that the human mind, in a cultural
vacuum, can't teach itself much of anything. All human knowlege and
progress has been a process of accretion, of building upon the
discoveries of the many who have gone before. Newton wouldn't have
invented the calcucus if he hadn't algebra and trigonometry in his back
packet, eh?

When you say a person can teach himself to paddle, you are correct to a
degree: he can distill all the books and films he has seen on the
subject, or noticed occuring on a lake as he drives by, to get some
sense of the basic idea, then he can experiment to refine that idea in
the face of ugly reality -- the boat does NOT float straight and swift
in the direction the paddler wills -- until he can achieve something
acceptable. But without the prior concept of how a canoe or kayak is
supposed to behave, an innocent human would not know to keep trying
different things until he achieved successful boat control. So, in a
sense, no-one in the 21st century has the opportunity to teach himself
from scratch.

Ridiculous. You mean you think that someone who has never seen or heard of a
boat before paddling on one side only and going in circles would just give
up and say "Oh well?" You don't think they might try paddling on both sides?

Yes, that is what I mean. You just cannot see it because you cannot
see through all the analogous activities of 21st Century experience.
We have all "walked" a bicycle by stepping with alternate feet. We
have all seen people moving a wheelchair by grasping and rotating both
wheels simultaneously. We have all seen rowers, pushing against the
water on both sides concurrently. So any one of us, getting into a
boat for the first time, will draw upon all this prior knowlege and
observation, and know -- or eventually learn -- to put equal force on
each side of the boat. Oops, excuse me, I forgot about the girl scouts
who ran into that other twit and hurt his hand; I guess that not
EVERYBODY figgers this out intuitively. Some of those girl scouts will
keep at it and figger it out; others of them will just give up and say
"[o]h well."

The way knowlege works is that the discoveries -- the little "better
ways" -- of many people -- are gathered up and integrated by scholars
of the subject (or, in our case, the practioners of the sport) who
share their collected wisdom with one another, and eventually compile a
cononical "best way" to do a thing (understand, this is not necessarily
the *actual* best way, but it is usually a pretty darned good way, and
until a Dick Fosbury comes along, is usually the best way known). Then
these scholars turn around and teach it back to the masses. IOW, the
zillion tiny discoveries that trickle up from the masses to the
"scholars" are then organized, integrated, and passed back down, as
"instruction".

Sure, anyone can go out and struggle, and maybe have fun on a lake or
river. But people who take the trouble to engage an instructor to pass
over this accretion of knowlege will forever laugh at those trying to
"reinvent the wheel". We look at you flailing down the river the way
we look at George W. Bush when he claims "I don't believe in global
warming" or "intelligent design is valid science;" we sneer at willful
ignorance. But we don't necessarily sneer at people who aren't
interested in becoming serious boaters, but merely wish to splash, or
fish, or lollygag around in a boat.

The pompous and arrogant assumption is that the self-taught practioner will
only ever be capable of paddling in a pond or arm-paddling. This simply
isn't always true, not in kayaking, and not in other sports.

One in thousands are innovators. Ol' Milos Duffek invented a new
stroke for changing direction in a racing kayak. Davey Hearn and/or
Jon Lugbill invented the pivot turn for changing direction even more
rapidly. And all the rest of the racing world had their asses kicked
in the World's competition the years those innovations were first
introduced, and all the rest of the high-end racing community had
integrated those techniques by the ensuing World's. But the run-of the
mill recreational canoeists and kayakers, who don't watch the World's
competition, are shown these techniques by instructors (professional or
casual) along with the appropriate caveats for avoiding shoulder
dislocation in the execution of a duffek. Others learn by watching,
and some of those blow out their shoulders, because the stresses on the
shoulder (and even the ball-and-socket engineering of the shoulder) are
not intuitively understood by... well, by me and the rest of the world.

You introduce a fallacy into the argument when you assert "[t]his
simply isn't always true, not in kayaking, and not in other sports."
The fallacy arises from the fact that you are correct, in the limited
domain you restrict the argument to: paddling in a pond. It *is* true,
as you assert, that some people will be able to figger out how to
paddle around in a pond. BFD. There's no point in asking a question
on r.b.p if all you aspire to is to wallow around in a pond. You do a
severe disservice to anyone who asks how to become a better paddler
when you correctly assert that it can be done without instruction, but
foolishly or maliciously fail to mention that that assertion is correct
only in respect to the rare, talented individual; that the vast
majority of us will benefit greatly from instruction. And that
*no-one* can aspire to world-class competition without instruction and
constant coaching.

Those who become truly skillful without professional instruction only
do so by watching other people who *have* had such instruction, and
enulating them.

Balderdash.

Fact. Most people who DO get such instruction need years of coaching
to integrate all the tiny details of technique necessary to be truly
competitive (not that I race, because I actually don't see paddling as
any kind of competition, but the World's and, to a lesser extent, the
Olympics, are the only *objective* measure of high-end paddling
technique.) And relative competence can only be measured by technique
and by results. Result: you got through that rapid upright and without
completely swamping your canoe. Result: I got through that rapid
upright, with grace and style, and a dry boat. Difference: technique.

They're not working it out for themselves from
scratch, I guarantee you. One might say they are freeloading on those
who do choose to support an infrastructure of "professionals".

Well, as humans we are constantly adjusting what we do and say based on our
observations and interactions with others. But the idea that the world is
all about non-profressionals free-loading on professionals is total hogwash.
In the case of most of academia, it is rather the opposite. People are out
doing things - oblivious to the existence of academics and their work - and
the academics then write about what is happening and seek credit, fame and
fortune for their brilliant observations of the life that is happening
beyond the ivory tower.

Ah, I see. Yer an anti-intellectual. That explains everything. My
ol' ma used to say "you can't argue with stupidity," and she wasn't
even an academic. But evidently she knew whereof she spoke. I'm outta
this thread. Plonk.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

On 17-Oct-2005, "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote:

We have all "walked" a bicycle by stepping with alternate feet.

The original velocipede had no pedals. It took a while for someone
to figure that out.


We have all seen rowers, pushing against the
water on both sides concurrently. So any one of us, getting into a
boat for the first time, will draw upon all this prior knowlege and
observation, and know -- or eventually learn -- to put equal force on
each side of the boat.

Not always - I remember sitting in the restaurant at Canoe Lake in
Algonquin at the end of a trip. It was a wonderful Sunday afternoon
and a family of Sikhs (father in a turban, women in saris) rented a
canoe for a picnic paddle. Mom in front, dad in the stern seat,
grandma in the centre and two or three kids scattered about.

They proceded to paddle away from the dock and go around in a circle -
around and around and around. Every one watched, amused, for quite
a while as dad got more and more frustrated. Then one of the canoe
store employees got into a canoe and gave them a quick lesson. Dad
looked relieved and they tried again. After a few more circles, they
started in a wobbly line out of the bay and around the bend. Just as
they drifted out of sight, a squall hit and a downpour soaked everyone.
It was funny, in a sad sort of way. An immigrant family's introduction
to canoeing in Canada.

Mike

in article , Oci-One
Kanubi at wrote on 10/17/05 4:25 PM:

KMAN wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
KMAN wrote:
"Steve Cramer" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote
My part in the discussion came about because I felt that opinions were
being expressed to suggest that one cannot learn to kayak without
professional instruction.

Who ever said such a thing? Could you please quote that post? Mike has
been pretty clear that instruction is a good thing, and you have been
pretty clear on the opposite sentiment, that it's better to figure out
things on your own.

In another thread you said "The common assumption is often that
learning
is something to rush through in order to arrive at enjoyment. Well, if
you
like sex that last about 30 seconds, then I guess that's the right
philosophy! Personally I find the journey is just as important as the
destination, and that goes for paddling too :-) " and "Learning is
exciting. The problem is some people think it is something to
avoid or get past as quickly as possible. "

That's rather far from my ideas. I'll suggest a couple a things that I
believe, that you apparently don't.

1. Knowledge and skill are beter than ignorance. We begin every new
activity in a state of ignorance. Most people do in fact choose to get
past that state fairly rapidly, because...

2. Activities pursued skillfully are more fun than those pursued
clumsily.
This is certainly true for boating. Being able to place the boat where
you
want it, to play, to surf: that's great fun. More fun than just
floating
down the river because you don't know how to paddle skillfully.

You are falling into the same trap of assuming that learners who do not
hire
professionals to teach them are incapable of advancing beyond floating
down
the river. Thus my participation in this thread, as this is wholly
untrue.

"Learning is exciting," you say, which is certainly true, but then you
say
"some people think it is something to avoid or get past as quickly as
possible." You NEVER get past learning. All the same, I can't imagine
anyone saying, as you seem to, "I'm in no hurry to get skillful; I'd
like
to remain ignorant and clumsy as long as possible."

I've said no such thing. I've been trying to explain that people can and
to
become skillful without professional instructino. I think I've been
pretty
clear about that. Maybe take a read through again.

Human history shows, pretty clearly, that the human mind, in a cultural
vacuum, can't teach itself much of anything. All human knowlege and
progress has been a process of accretion, of building upon the
discoveries of the many who have gone before. Newton wouldn't have
invented the calcucus if he hadn't algebra and trigonometry in his back
packet, eh?

When you say a person can teach himself to paddle, you are correct to a
degree: he can distill all the books and films he has seen on the
subject, or noticed occuring on a lake as he drives by, to get some
sense of the basic idea, then he can experiment to refine that idea in
the face of ugly reality -- the boat does NOT float straight and swift
in the direction the paddler wills -- until he can achieve something
acceptable. But without the prior concept of how a canoe or kayak is
supposed to behave, an innocent human would not know to keep trying
different things until he achieved successful boat control. So, in a
sense, no-one in the 21st century has the opportunity to teach himself
from scratch.

Ridiculous. You mean you think that someone who has never seen or heard of a
boat before paddling on one side only and going in circles would just give
up and say "Oh well?" You don't think they might try paddling on both sides?

Yes, that is what I mean. You just cannot see it

What is it I am not seeing?

because you cannot
see through all the analogous activities of 21st Century experience.

I think I could manage that.

We have all "walked" a bicycle by stepping with alternate feet. We
have all seen people moving a wheelchair by grasping and rotating both
wheels simultaneously. We have all seen rowers, pushing against the
water on both sides concurrently. So any one of us, getting into a
boat for the first time, will draw upon all this prior knowlege and
observation, and know -- or eventually learn -- to put equal force on
each side of the boat. Oops, excuse me, I forgot about the girl scouts
who ran into that other twit and hurt his hand; I guess that not
EVERYBODY figgers this out intuitively. Some of those girl scouts will
keep at it and figger it out; others of them will just give up and say
"[o]h well."

OK...?

The way knowlege works is that the discoveries -- the little "better
ways" -- of many people -- are gathered up and integrated by scholars
of the subject (or, in our case, the practioners of the sport) who
share their collected wisdom with one another, and eventually compile a
cononical "best way" to do a thing (understand, this is not necessarily
the *actual* best way, but it is usually a pretty darned good way, and
until a Dick Fosbury comes along, is usually the best way known). Then
these scholars turn around and teach it back to the masses. IOW, the
zillion tiny discoveries that trickle up from the masses to the
"scholars" are then organized, integrated, and passed back down, as
"instruction".

Sure, anyone can go out and struggle, and maybe have fun on a lake or
river. But people who take the trouble to engage an instructor to pass
over this accretion of knowlege will forever laugh at those trying to
"reinvent the wheel". We look at you flailing down the river the way
we look at George W. Bush when he claims "I don't believe in global
warming" or "intelligent design is valid science;" we sneer at willful
ignorance. But we don't necessarily sneer at people who aren't
interested in becoming serious boaters, but merely wish to splash, or
fish, or lollygag around in a boat.

The pompous and arrogant assumption is that the self-taught practioner will
only ever be capable of paddling in a pond or arm-paddling. This simply
isn't always true, not in kayaking, and not in other sports.

One in thousands are innovators.

I'm not talking about innovators.

I'm saying exactly what I am saying.

The assumption that the self-taught kayaker will go no further than paddling
in a pond with their arms is pompous and arrogant.

Ol' Milos Duffek invented a new
stroke for changing direction in a racing kayak. Davey Hearn and/or
Jon Lugbill invented the pivot turn for changing direction even more
rapidly. And all the rest of the racing world had their asses kicked
in the World's competition the years those innovations were first
introduced, and all the rest of the high-end racing community had
integrated those techniques by the ensuing World's. But the run-of the
mill recreational canoeists and kayakers, who don't watch the World's
competition, are shown these techniques by instructors (professional or
casual) along with the appropriate caveats for avoiding shoulder
dislocation in the execution of a duffek. Others learn by watching,
and some of those blow out their shoulders, because the stresses on the
shoulder (and even the ball-and-socket engineering of the shoulder) are
not intuitively understood by... well, by me and the rest of the world.

You introduce a fallacy into the argument when you assert "[t]his
simply isn't always true, not in kayaking, and not in other sports."
The fallacy arises from the fact that you are correct, in the limited
domain you restrict the argument to: paddling in a pond. It *is* true,
as you assert, that some people will be able to figger out how to
paddle around in a pond.

That's not what I am asserting at all.

BFD. There's no point in asking a question
on r.b.p if all you aspire to is to wallow around in a pond.

I'm not a pond paddler, and I'm not talking about pond paddlers. You should
try to pay attention, I'm usually pretty precise in my statements.

I said:

"The pompous and arrogant assumption is that the self-taught practioner will
only ever be capable of paddling in a pond or arm-paddling."

You do a
severe disservice to anyone who asks how to become a better paddler
when you correctly assert that it can be done without instruction, but
foolishly or maliciously fail to mention that that assertion is correct
only in respect to the rare, talented individual;

It's not limited to the rare, talented individual.

that the vast
majority of us will benefit greatly from instruction.

It depends on your goal.

And that
*no-one* can aspire to world-class competition without instruction and
constant coaching.

And a good steroid prescription. But if you mean am I suggesting that you
can teach yourself your way to the olympic gold, no, not bloody likely when
you are trying to shave .003 of your time. But we aren't talking about
winning the olympic gold.

Those who become truly skillful without professional instruction only
do so by watching other people who *have* had such instruction, and
enulating them.

Balderdash.

Fact. Most people who DO get such instruction need years of coaching
to integrate all the tiny details of technique necessary to be truly
competitive (not that I race, because I actually don't see paddling as
any kind of competition, but the World's and, to a lesser extent, the
Olympics, are the only *objective* measure of high-end paddling
technique.) And relative competence can only be measured by technique
and by results. Result: you got through that rapid upright and without
completely swamping your canoe. Result: I got through that rapid
upright, with grace and style, and a dry boat. Difference: technique.

Technique can be learned without professional instruction. I've seen people
do it, I've done it myself.

They're not working it out for themselves from
scratch, I guarantee you. One might say they are freeloading on those
who do choose to support an infrastructure of "professionals".

Well, as humans we are constantly adjusting what we do and say based on our
observations and interactions with others. But the idea that the world is
all about non-profressionals free-loading on professionals is total hogwash.
In the case of most of academia, it is rather the opposite. People are out
doing things - oblivious to the existence of academics and their work - and
the academics then write about what is happening and seek credit, fame and
fortune for their brilliant observations of the life that is happening
beyond the ivory tower.

Ah, I see. Yer an anti-intellectual.

I have three university degrees, and I don't think I'm an anti-illectual.
Most of my time on rbp has been a search for respect for logic.

That explains everything. My
ol' ma used to say "you can't argue with stupidity," and she wasn't
even an academic. But evidently she knew whereof she spoke. I'm outta
this thread. Plonk.

Oh, another mature intellectual who "plonks" people. Bravo!

My father is a very successful academic, and he would have no problem with
my description of academia above.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

My father is a very successful academic, and he would have no problem with
my description of academia above.

He must be SO proud; it's obvious you've been solidly in the top 99% of all
your classes.

in article , Roger Houston at
wrote on 10/17/05 11:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

My father is a very successful academic, and he would have no problem with
my description of academia above.

He must be SO proud; it's obvious you've been solidly in the top 99% of all
your classes.

There's nothing wrong with understanding that most academics are primarily
observers of change, not drivers of change. I haven't been "in classes" for
some time, but yes, I did quite well. I don't consider it much of an
achievement to get high grades in university. I'm more interested in what
people do when they leave. If they leave.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

He must be SO proud; it's obvious you've been solidly in the top 99% of
all
your classes.

I haven't been "in classes" for
some time, but yes, I did quite well.

Whoosh.

"Roger Houston" wrote in message
...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

He must be SO proud; it's obvious you've been solidly in the top 99% of
all
your classes.

I haven't been "in classes" for
some time, but yes, I did quite well.

Whoosh.

Brilliant!

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

Whoosh.

Brilliant!

You're a good sport.