|
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 , 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 ================================================== ==================== |
DaggerAnimosity
"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. |
trip report was..DaggerAnimosity
"Roger Houston" wrote in message ... "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? =============================== 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 |
DaggerAnimosity
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 ================================================== ==================== |
DaggerAnimosity
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 |
DaggerAnimosity
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. |
DaggerAnimosity
"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. |
DaggerAnimosity
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. |
DaggerAnimosity
"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. |
DaggerAnimosity
"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! |
DaggerAnimosity
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . Whoosh. Brilliant! You're a good sport. |
DaggerAnimosity
"Roger Houston" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . Whoosh. Brilliant! You're a good sport. Self-taught. |
I've seen a few people who make the lives of professional teaching recommend people to freedom, not for their own learning. But it is a and foolish the whole or any statement that is not a competent teachers will always say that. That the high-risk activities are often the best fact has nothing to do with others, with the discussion. We are talking about whether it is possible to learn without professional skills teaching canoeing.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com