DaggerAnimosity
 

On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Eh?

On second thought, I think I'll put you back where you belong.

plonk

Mike

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Roger Houston at
wrote on 10/16/05 9:03 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Heh. I don't buy into the the locus pocus myself.

Well, you really don't have to buy into anything. The "locus pocus" is a
theory that "professionals" in behavioral science have used to help to
explain something they've observed.

Bah.

They know they are
overweight. They know they need to eat better. They know they need to
exercise more. But they've bought in (and it's easy to buy in, since all
that is required is laziness) to the culture of professionalization, which
states that no matter what it is you are too lazy to do, it's not your
fault, the problem is you haven't yet hired a professional.

In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you said
here.

I a loose an innacurante sense, imo.

In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational definition
of the theory. If you talked long enough, you'd reveal that your
theoretical framework is parallel to that of the professionals who observed
behavior and postulated the theory of locus of control.

Don't believe it?

No.

Internal: Some folks learn just fine on their own, others don't.

I disagree.

Some folks know that they can learn on their own, others don't.

External: Some folks learn by observing others, choosing the things they
saw others do that worked and adopting them to their own performance, and
discarding, or not attempting in the first place, the things they've seen
others do that didn't work.

All folks are capable of doing this. Some don't believe that they are, and
as a result their own thinking makes it impossible for them to do so.

Powerful other: Some people figure they can never do it on their own and
seek professional instruction, often assigning guru-like attributes to the
instructor. (Not deterred by many instructors who assign guru-like
attributes to themselves).

See above.

So, in a sense, you have provided a reinforcement of this theory by
'publishing' your observations in this forum and defending your thesis
against the "other side" (using your dichotomy), and bolstering the
observations and theory of "professionals".

I disagree. I don't think my "theory" is not even close to being a parallel
to the theory you have described.

You don't buy into the "locus hocus pocus" yet you've arrived at similar
conclusions on your own but have chosen to call the described domains by
other names. Put another way, you've "discovered" something for yourself
that "professionals" have written about for others to learn without doing
the experiments you've done.

I'm aware of al those theories, and I don't agree that I've arrived at the
same conclusion. But there are definitely other types of formalized theories
that would indeed resemble my thoughts on this issue. What you've described
just doesn't fit the bill, imo.

Other theoretical work to which your philosophy alludes (and which you could
look up) would be found using the phrase "learning style".

LOL. I'm well aware of those too. That's not what this is about, in my
opinion. Learning with a professional instructor only is not a learning
style. Whether you are a visual learning, hands-on learner, etc has no
bearing on the argument that people are capable of learning without
professional instruction.

The dead horse in this particular line of discussion is that the theories
aren't laws, exceptions can be found for each, and you'll continue to point
out the exceptions -- often using yourself as an example.

No generalization is worth a damn -- including this one.

The reason I dismiss the "locus pocus" as an explanation is that I believe
anyone who has arrived at an "I can't learn without a professional"
conclusion is a victim of distorted thinking.

It's not about learning styles or any of that internal/external crap either.
It's simply untrue that one can't learn without a professional instructor,
that's "all or nothing" thinking, and I'm sure there are about a dozen other
thinking fallacies someone could assign to it.

I'd ask such a person...is it really true that you can't learn without a
professional? Here's task x. Give it a try. What happened? OK, now try it
again. What happened this time? Was it different? Right! So if you try it a
third time, what will you do? OK, go ahead. Great, that worked a lot better,
didn't it?

Guess what, you are learning. It's part of being a human being. Only
distorted thinking can prevent it from happening.

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 10/16/05 12:43 PM:


On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Eh?

On second thought, I think I'll put you back where you belong.

plonk

Mike

LOL.

Translation: Having demonstrated he is incapable of pursuing a logical
argument when held accountable for his own behaviour, Michael Daly is
running away, going to his room, and slamming the door. But will that closed
door drown out the voices of doubt rebounding endlessly inside the confines
of his own skull? Time will tell. I know it's out of character Michael, but
in your case I really do recommend professional help!

DaggerAnimosity
 

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Bah.


Shorn.

DaggerAnimosity
 

Roger says:
================
In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you
said
here. In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational
definition
of the theory.
================

Quite right, Roger.

At the risk of speaking for KMAN (again?); what I hear hear him saying
is more a case of "I don't buy this 'external locus of control' pocus"
because, as you so correctly point out, KMAN is totally into the
internal locus of control thing.

Cheers

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 10/16/05 8:12 PM:

Roger says:
================
In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you
said
here. In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational
definition
of the theory.
================

Quite right, Roger.

At the risk of speaking for KMAN (again?); what I hear hear him saying
is more a case of "I don't buy this 'external locus of control' pocus"
because, as you so correctly point out, KMAN is totally into the
internal locus of control thing.

Cheers

Hm. Sort of. It's just that when it comes to learning, every human being by
virtue of being a human being has an internal locus of control. The fact
that some people come to believe they do not have this - that they must hire
a professional so that they can learn something new - comes as a result of
distorted thinking. As to what causes that distorted thinking, well, that
would be an interesting and very long discussion that might well include a
dialogue about the professionalization of recreation :-)

DaggerAnimosity
 

What I've been noticing is that Kman and Mike pretty much agree on most of
what is being argued about with the exception that Mike believe's some would
like professional instruction and Kman doesn't think they need it.
Regardless people are going to do whatever it is they want to do despite
this argument. Some want to learn strokes correctly right off the bat and
others prefer to take their time learning on their own. Some are frustrated
and turn to a professional while others turn to a friend or book while some
don't turn to anyone at all. That's why this world is so wonderful,
everyone is different and expects different things from themselves and
others. Whatever works best for them is the way they should go. As for
this argument, you both make good points but now there's just alot of
repeating going on and hard feelings being had. Let's put this on to rest.

I learned from a friend that happened to be on the US team, lucky me. After
that I learned from watching. I never had "professional" instruction.
However I eventually became an instructor and have been for 10 years now.
I'm happy to give out tips to anyone who simply asks on the river and I'm
also happy if they want me to teach them professionally. As a professional
I'm glad that I am able to offer that service for those who want it and as
an individual I'm happy to help out those that were like me when I started.
Whatever it takes for one to get on the river and be happy paddling is what
it's all about.

Courtney

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , BCITORGB
at
wrote on 10/16/05 8:12 PM:

Roger says:
================
In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you
said
here. In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational
definition
of the theory.
================

Quite right, Roger.

At the risk of speaking for KMAN (again?); what I hear hear him saying
is more a case of "I don't buy this 'external locus of control' pocus"
because, as you so correctly point out, KMAN is totally into the
internal locus of control thing.

Cheers

Hm. Sort of. It's just that when it comes to learning, every human being
by
virtue of being a human being has an internal locus of control. The fact
that some people come to believe they do not have this - that they must
hire
a professional so that they can learn something new - comes as a result of
distorted thinking. As to what causes that distorted thinking, well, that
would be an interesting and very long discussion that might well include a
dialogue about the professionalization of recreation :-)

DaggerAnimosity
 

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
What I've been noticing is that Kman and Mike pretty much agree on most of
what is being argued about with the exception that Mike believe's some
would
like professional instruction and Kman doesn't think they need it.

Regardless people are going to do whatever it is they want to do despite
this argument. Some want to learn strokes correctly right off the bat and
others prefer to take their time learning on their own. Some are
frustrated
and turn to a professional while others turn to a friend or book while
some
don't turn to anyone at all. That's why this world is so wonderful,
everyone is different and expects different things from themselves and
others. Whatever works best for them is the way they should go. As for
this argument, you both make good points but now there's just alot of
repeating going on and hard feelings being had. Let's put this on to
rest.

If you've actually been following, my argument is simply that people CAN
learn without professional instruction. I have no issue whatsoever with
someone who wants to hire an instructor.

I learned from a friend that happened to be on the US team, lucky me.
After
that I learned from watching. I never had "professional" instruction.
However I eventually became an instructor and have been for 10 years now.
I'm happy to give out tips to anyone who simply asks on the river and I'm
also happy if they want me to teach them professionally. As a
professional
I'm glad that I am able to offer that service for those who want it and as
an individual I'm happy to help out those that were like me when I
started.
Whatever it takes for one to get on the river and be happy paddling is
what
it's all about.

Courtney

Works for me Courtney.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , BCITORGB
at
wrote on 10/16/05 8:12 PM:

Roger says:
================
In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you
said
here. In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational
definition
of the theory.
================

Quite right, Roger.

At the risk of speaking for KMAN (again?); what I hear hear him saying
is more a case of "I don't buy this 'external locus of control' pocus"
because, as you so correctly point out, KMAN is totally into the
internal locus of control thing.

Cheers

Hm. Sort of. It's just that when it comes to learning, every human being
by
virtue of being a human being has an internal locus of control. The fact
that some people come to believe they do not have this - that they must
hire
a professional so that they can learn something new - comes as a result
of
distorted thinking. As to what causes that distorted thinking, well,
that
would be an interesting and very long discussion that might well include
a
dialogue about the professionalization of recreation :-)

DaggerAnimosity
 

Hi Roger.

I have three canoes, and I know how to use 'em. And no kayaks.

In fact, I used one of them at Breaks Interstate (KY/VA) Park near
Hazard, KY, last Saturday and Sunday on the Pound River into the Upper
Russell Fork (of the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River, which flows
into the Ohio River where West Virginia and Kentucky meet the
southernmost tip of Ohio).

Beautiful river, beautiful weather, and wonderful company.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net cell: (301) 775-0471
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu office: (336) 713-5077
================================================== ====================


Roger Houston wrote:
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

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?

DaggerAnimosity
 

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.

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.

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