reaction quicker than action

[IRONMONK]

I think that action is quicker than reaction but according to this article its the other way .

http://www.wingtsunwelt.com/english/presse/news_380.html

so what do you guys think?

[t_niehoff]

Folks can marshall "facts" or give significance to some things and not others to support all kinds of different theories. In my view, it is a huge mistake to begin from theory in the first place. Instead, we should start with application ("this works"). And from application, we can derive the theory ("this is why it works"). So if someone wants to expound on theory, I think they should initially show X in genuine application and then go on to explain why they can make X work (and not give the theory and then a demo on how it should work -- that's useless IMO).

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

I don't know about the math, and I didn't see specific references cited. However, I do think there is something to this.

In my experience, the person with greater patience to wait, confidence, and what we often call sensitivity or "listening skills" has a distinct advantage.

I am convinced this is important, and while I can rationalize it in part, I still feel there are some parts of this phenomenon I don't fully understand. I have worked with a number of people who have far better "listening" (and other) skills than I do, as well as those with lesser skills; similar results tend to play out again and again. Based on my own personal experience, here are a few things I've gleaned so far:


A highly perceptive person can sense and, if skillful enough, consistently exploit my movement before I can even complete the thought to employ the movement. From this I conclude there are indeed physiological signals which can be detected by a good "listener" before motion is fully instigated.
In such instances, I am typically the one trying to move first. The same thing occurs when I am the more sensitive party, and "wait" for someone less perceptive to make their movement. (There aren't many less sensitive than I, but there are a few.)
There is distinctly an "awareness" factor involved. The degree to which I can employ such perceptiveness varies dramatically with mental state.
The person who is "intending" a specific action (i.e., the one moving first), appears to be somewhat more committed to that action (there is more to exploit), than the person who is less or non-committed, more relaxed and fluid, and responding only to what is presented.
The impact of this kind of sensitivity is physically and intellectually shocking to experience. It is rather as if you have lost all functional control over your own voluntary movements.


While there may be some great psychic element at play, I'm inclined toward more simple and obvious explanations. It doesn't seem any great mystery, for example, that greater overall skill yields greater confidence, which in turn affords greater patience, ability to "wait", and less physical and psychological "commitment". It follows from this that the skilled and "listening" person can more easily exploit the opponent, while offering less to be exploited in themselves. Ideally/theoretically anyway ... there is always something to exploit provided you can move before the other person gains sufficient control overy your voluntary and involuntary movements. With some people, this proves to be a very big "if."

I have no idea where such phenomenon occur in the range of .0 to .5 seconds, but I know it happens really really fast and before you can blink an eye. Beyond all of this, the question still remains regarding the kinds of circumstances and degrees of pressure under which one is capable of employing these kinds of skills. It seems there are endless layers of skill to be conquered.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yellowpikachu]

"Our consciousness therefore deceives us at every turn! "


Yes,
Consciousness is deciving.
Time, Space, and Energy based on Consciousness is even deciving.
Indentity based on Conscsiousness is also deciving.


But how can one pursue others the above is the facts? if what all one's habit is to use the personal consciousness or logic to validate everything?



The wudang Taiji, the Shao Lin Chan, the Emei Zhuan all tries to tell others about the above. But who is listerning?

In that realm, martial art is a different beast.
power generation is an abundance simple act-- no stress and nature. Have you think about how much weight your leg has to carry your body to walk for every steps or every dancing move? if you dont believe power generation is abundance and nature.


if We dont change our view, nothing much will change.



Just some mad thoughts.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by kj
the person with greater patience to wait, confidence, and what we often call sensitivity or "listening skills" has a distinct advantage.



At the end the "body " turn into "silk" floating in the air. When it Chi Sau, it is sensing similar to using the hair of the skin to touch. the "body" turn into those "tempur-pedic matress" where it sink but support any weight place on top of it... the body becomes the listerning itself.



it is based on this type of platform that the "sensor art" such as Taiji , Emei, and Wing Chun build on.....


Thus, the body dont need to get into a state, does the function, get out the state. The body is the listerning and listerning is flowing, ever-presence without changing the state.


Thus, I have heard.

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik wrote:

"Our consciousness therefore deceives us at every turn! "

Yes,
Consciousness is deciving.
Time, Space, and Energy based on Consciousness is even deciving.
Indentity based on Conscsiousness is also deciving.

But how can one pursue others the above is the facts? if what all one's habit is to use the personal consciousness or logic to validate everything?

The wudang Taiji, the Shao Lin Chan, the Emei Zhuan all tries to tell others about the above. But who is listerning?

**And what if "wudang Taiji, the Shao Lin Chan, the Emei Zhuan" are deceiving us? What if they are mudlled, confused, nonsense? Should I follow a path that leads nowhere? It seems to me that the vailidity of any *claim* rests upon proof (results). Any suggestion we disregard a focus on proof/results and instead look to something else reveals "magical thinking" IMO.

Regards,

Terence

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

**And what if "wudang Taiji, the Shao Lin Chan, the Emei Zhuan" are deceiving us? What if they are mudlled, confused, nonsense? Should I follow a path that leads nowhere? It seems to me that the vailidity of any *claim* rests upon proof (results). Any suggestion we disregard a focus on proof/results and instead look to something else reveals "magical thinking" IMO.




1, You see, my grand-aunt for her whole life never believe that human has landed on the moon. I cant persure her anything.


2, If you dont worried about tommorow, is tommorrow never going to come? and is your tommorrow run as what you plan in your Day-planner or franklin planner. Sure we all like to think we have controlled.


3, There is no "magic thinking" it is just "delude thinking" that everyone think what they think is the Truth.

4, Wudang Taiji, Shao Lin Chan, and Emei Zhuang lead one to NOW here. Some might take that as no where. But, is their going some where thinking really will arrive at anywhere?

5, there is alots of FEAR when one is having doubt and not trying any new things; before the new things or new paths is check out to fullfil one's criteria on how things should be according to one's consciousness. Some even goes as far as not travelling by plane because there is a chance the plane might come down.


So, Van Helsing is Ven Helsing because of his personal consciousness. Bill Gate is Bill Gate because of his personal consciousness. We are not them so we all have our personal consciousness. Who's personal consciousness tell the TRUTH story of the REALITY?

The teaching of Wudang Taji, Shao Lin Chan, or Emei Zhuang is only about "Will you willing to living in NOW and step out of your personal consciousness who you think it is the master of the body and go with the natura of the body?"

The delimma of majority of us in this era is we like to define reality with our own personal consciousness. The guy/gal who is more eltheletic by nature will define his/her way is the truth.
The one who always doing thing in a straight line in and out fashion will always belive others has to have a RECORVERY action. The one who does thing in a Circular maner will then asked What RECORVERY ACTION? Circle has no in or out....... list goes on and on and on. and debate goes on and on and on.....
But it goes NO WHere (even the conciousness keep judging who is correct who is wrong.....) instead of NOW here.

as for Wing Chun, if the action comes with Sickle why is there needs a RECORVERY PLAN? For the Boxing, sure a Straight Jab needs a Recorvery Plan. can a Boxing Localization Evolve into come with a sickle? Can a WingChun Localization Evolve into a Boxing like? sure, Nothing right or wrong. just different stuffs and if the personal consciousness get caught up on the TRUTH speculation and not bother to even look and observe. there is where the deceiving comes in. That simple.


Just some thoughts.

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik wrote:

1, You see, my grand-aunt for her whole life never believe that human has landed on the moon. I cant persure her anything.

**The problem with claims in MAs is that anyone can claim antything -- how do we discern if something is useful information? I think the very term itself -- useful -- gives us the answer; can I really use that info (will it help me produce results). In fighting arts, it is useful information if it helps me increase my fighting performance.


2, If you dont worried about tommorow, is tommorrow never going to come? and is your tommorrow run as what you plan in your Day-planner or franklin planner. Sure we all like to think we have controlled.

**Martial arts involve training. Training implies progress (getting better at something). That means results. Is this looking to the future? Of course. There would be no point to training if I wasn't trying to improve my performance.


3, There is no "magic thinking" it is just "delude thinking" that everyone think what they think is the Truth.

**So how do we know what thinking is "deluded"? Is it deluded to suggest that if someone claims "training X will produce such-and-such" that we actually demand to see that result?

4, Wudang Taiji, Shao Lin Chan, and Emei Zhuang lead one to NOW here. Some might take that as no where. But, is their going some where thinking really will arrive at anywhere?

**You *say* that, but can you prove that?

5, there is alots of FEAR when one is having doubt and not trying any new things; before the new things or new paths doesnt check out to fullfil one's criteria on how things should be according to one's consciousness. Some even goes as far as not travelling by plane because there is a chance the plane might comes down.

**And lots of people float from guru to guru, from cult to cult, etc. always trying new things and looking for answers too. The great thing about martial arts is we can see for ourselves whether or not some claim actually produces results or not.

**Many engage in what I call "belief-based" training ("I believe or have been told that this will produce results"); my point is that if that belief is true, then we should be able to see those results. By focusing on results instead of the belief, we can separate those "beliefs" which are accurate from those that aren't.

-------------------

KJ,

It's fairly easy to develop so-called "great listening skills" and "sensitivity" while performing a drill like chi sao because of the very nature of the drill (certain specific repeatable responses are ingrained against certain specific repeated actions, even if practiced in a "random" sequence). In reality, fighting-level attributes, including these, cannot be significantly developed by the drill (chi sao) alone. This is an easy thing to check for oneself.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ,

It's fairly easy to develop so-called "great listening skills" and "sensitivity" while performing a drill like chi sao because of the very nature of the drill (certain specific repeatable responses are ingrained against certain specific repeated actions, even if practiced in a "random" sequence). In reality, fighting-level attributes, including these, cannot be significantly developed by the drill (chi sao) alone. This is an easy thing to check for oneself.

Regards,

Terence

In a very general sense I won't disagree with this.

However, based on your observation that ...

"certain specific repeatable responses are ingrained against certain specific repeated actions, even if practiced in a 'random' sequence"

... it seems we have very dramatically different perspectives on the fundamentals and nature of chi sau. Furthermore, if you are aiming to develop skills that rely on attributes that preclude sensitivity (chi sau or no), then I think it's fair to say we are indeed pursuing fundamentally different species of martial art.

Regards,
- kj

[yellowpikachu]

**Many engage in what I call "belief-based" training ("I believe or have been told that this will produce results"); my point is that if that belief is true, then we should be able to see those results.

By focusing on results instead of the belief, we can separate those "beliefs" which are accurate from those that aren't.------- T



May be a "belief-based" is just a "belief -based" or might be it is a "step out of your present limiting personal consciousness based".

if in the begining of a match one side thought he cant win. Then, there goes the match.

if one thinks one cannot do it, the body is not going to do it. Disregards of what Result the coach or books or guru wants the one to focus.

One got to be willing and Believe subscontiously and then focus to the "proper spot" comes naturally.

Same with all business starts up. who knows what is the result? but every CEO of the starts up believe and willing. and the approach keeps changing and the focus keeps changing until the believe becomes true.

Look at the silicon Valley starts up company. That is based on Believe and willing to step out of limiting personal consciousness.

One cannot book reading and do all kind of set or imitate business plan in the silicon valley starts up cases to get result. because the environment change so fast that change itself is the business plan and result varies greatly with environment which is totally out of control.


on the other hand,

If it is a machine or robot where the machine is set to do 500 task per day with a 0.1% defect result. That result oriented is great I agree. However, when speaking about Human living, and human streching to excel, and artistic. that doesnt applied well.

BTW, that result orientated is also a key couse of human depression and fear.



2,
It's fairly easy to develop so-called "great listening skills" and "sensitivity" while performing a drill like chi sao because of the very nature of the drill (certain specific repeatable responses are ingrained against certain specific repeated actions, even if practiced in a "random" sequence).

In reality, fighting-level attributes, including these, cannot be significantly developed by the drill (chi sao) alone. This is an easy thing to check for oneself. ----- T


may be that "great listerning skills" one define or think it is, is not a listening attainment at all by the definition of the Wudang, Shao Lin, and Emei?

Have some observe it that way?




Thus, I have heard, or Thus, I have read, some where.

Here is the description

The" listerning " attainment starts when the person who is being listern feel the listener is touching/sensing him/her with hair of the skin at contact. before that type of attainment, one is not capable to "listern" but one is "pressing".....


Just some thoughts

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by IRONMONK
I think that action is quicker than reaction but according to this article its the other way .

http://www.wingtsunwelt.com/english/presse/news_380.html

so what do you guys think?

Action is quicker, as it doesn't have a prerequisite. Reaction requires there be an action first.

The question is not which is faster it's which to train and develop. In application, after the initial action, it's all reaction....

Unless, of course, you have no concern whatsoever for what the other person is doing.

[kj]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
Action is quicker, as it doesn't have a prerequisite. Reaction requires there be an action first.

The question is not which is faster it's which to train and develop. In application, after the initial action, it's all reaction....

Unless, of course, you have no concern whatsoever for what the other person is doing.

That's a good way of putting it.

Regards,
- kj

[YongChun]

In the Chinese martial arts world there seems to be two opposite opinions. One holds that it is better to attack first and the other that it is better to wait (counter attacking mentality). Both come from actual fighting experience. Actual fighting experience does not always provide good answers because the results can depend on many factors. Some people report more success reacting and some more success initiating. So that's where theory comes in. Then again the theory needs to be tested. So practical fighting can produce opposite theories.

In a fight some fighter may have great success with a hook punch and conclude that this is the best punch for a fight. The theory may say the opposite. It may take time to find the right fighter who can implement the correct theory.

In theory Wing Chun may look more efficient than Karate. But in practice maybe Karate always wins. If this is the case, is the theory wrong or right? Sometimes the theoretical model is wrong because not enough factors are included in the equation. Sometimes the fight can be manipulated so as to discount some of the factors in a particular theoretical model.

I remember a Tai Chi article that said whoever attacks first loses. In some Samurai battles two warriors may cross swords for quite a while with each being afraid to initiate the attack.

As an academic experiment the Tai Chi article said to try crossing hands with your partner then both relax. Then one starts to move and it turns out he can always be off balanced because the other partner can make use of the stiffness in the initiator. That's the trick one of the Tai Chi people pulled on Kenneth Chung when he asked him to initiate the action. As soon as Ken issued the slightest bit of energy, he found himself face down on the floor. Whether that relates to a larger fighting context or can be made to relate to a larger fighting context is unknown at least as far as documented evidence goes.

A long time ago, one of our female members who was a Star Treck fan explained it this way: you have these two spaceships and one has a cloaking device, making the ship invisible. However once that cloaked ship wanted to fire upon another ship, it would have to turn of it's cloaking device to become visible for an instant. At that time the non cloaked ship could blast it to pieces. Her theory worked in Tai Chi pushing hands mode anyway. In general she went from theory to practical application.

Ray

[Knifefighter]

Action is always faster than reaction. The fact that action is faster than reaction has been exploited by the U.S. military since World War II.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Action is always faster than reaction. The fact that action is faster than reaction has been exploited by the U.S. military since World War II.

As a general statement that is true. As something practical in a fight that's a different thing.

As in the Tai Chi example, it depends. A guy who initiates with a crappy movement will get beat to the punch. In marketing sometimes a smarter produce can take the market from the guy who initiated. Perhaps the initiator didn't have enough money to market properly. If a slower guy inititiates then he will often lose. In grappling if I start with the wrong movement then I can lose if that guy happens to be good at countering that particular thing. In fighting if you are close enough then whoever start first can always hit and connect first. But the guy who connects first does not always win. The guy with knockout power is more likely to win even if he is slower.

[Tydive]

Reading the article what he says is that if you attack you will telegraph your intent. A "prepared" defender will be able to attack into preperation (because all attacks create openings) which makes the "defender" hit first... Which I agree with to a small degree. The quarter second responce time is well documented, but most often used to support the other side of his argument.

It really does not address the deeper point, which is that if you can see the persons intent clearly chances are that you can shut them down independant of who attacks first. Because if I know what you are going to do, or not do, then I can attack the open lines... Which gets into the game of presenting openings to draw the attack, or feints etc... So, lets not say that reaction is faster than action but that predictable action is slower than good reaction... which is pretty silly when you think about it, because good action is faster than predictable reaction.

[old jong]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Action is always faster than reaction. The fact that action is faster than reaction has been exploited by the U.S. military since World War II.

This "doctrine" was first used by the german military during the first stages of WWII and known as "blitzkrieg" (SP?) It worked wonders against the "dig in" methods of WWI But it means nothing against a handfull of decided guerrillas as shown by the Vietnam war and the actual disaster in the making right now!

Now back to the initial subject;Could it be possible that some kind of "pheromons" be emited by somebody on the verge of commiting an agression?...These "emission" could be "sensed" well before the actual action take place on the subcounscious level. Just a theory!...;)

[YongChun]

Originally posted by old jong
Now back to the initial subject;Could it be possible that some kind of "pheromons" be emited by somebody on the verge of commiting an agression?...These "emission" could be "sensed" well before the actual action take place on the subcounscious level. Just a theory!...;)

Just saw this definition:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pheronet/pherom.html
"Pheromones are chemicals emitted by living organisms to send messages to individuals of the same species."

That explains how some Aikido people from the "Ki" school can throw each other without visible contact because they are of the same species and hence can sense or smell each other's intent. But Wing Chun people and Thai boxers are of a different species and so we can't receive the messages from the Thai boxers that say "I'm going to kick your head in." We only realize the intent after it has happened.

Ray

[old jong]

An explaination for the lost of the hong Kong guys could be that the Thais old jockstraps smell got over the pheromons!...:eek: :eek: :eek:

[PaulH]

I like to point out the policy of the US back then was that of containment rather than Blitz. In the aftermath, even the Viet Cong were frank to admit they were on the verge of collapse due to their heavy bombing casualty back then. For some unclear US policy reason, the effective bombing campaign was halted and allowed the VC time to recover for the big invasion later on. =)

[old jong]

Originally posted by PaulH
I like to point out the policy of the US back then was that of containment rather than Blitz. In the aftermath, even the Viet Cong were frank to admit they were on the verge of collapse due to their heavy bombing casualty back then. For some unclear US policy reason, the effective bombing campaign was halted and allowed the VC time to recover for the big invasion later on. =)

It's out of topic but for the sake of discussion: We all know that the U.S. could nuke and easily exterminate any country in the world if they chose to. Is it a question of preserving a good reputation as a non "barbaric" nation?...They could as well glass the whole arabic regions to get to the oil in peace but,they are hung on keeping a good reputation.Althought the reputation is flying a little low with it's current "commander in chief"*

*Based on the opinions of the rest of the planet and half the U.S. population...;)

[PaulH]

We see through a glass darkly. What happens this Tuesday will determine the world history as we know it. =)

[old jong]

I think the whole planet is hoping for the best. I can't remember anything about a U.S. president being considered as a global menace before.
Back to Wing Chun,Thais jockstraps and pheromons!...;)

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by old jong
This "doctrine" was first used by the german military during the first stages of WWII and known as "blitzkrieg" (SP?) It worked wonders against the "dig in" methods of WWI But it means nothing against a handfull of decided guerrillas as shown by the Vietnam war and the actual disaster in the making right now! No, the "doctrine" was first developed by a WWII American fighter pilot and is known as the OODA loop theory

[Ultimatewingchun]

Anybody here play chess? White has the natural advantage because he moves first...and assuming his move is a good one...black has to react to white's move (ie.- play defense...to a certain extent).

So theoretically...if white always makes good initial moves...round-after-round...black will always be playing defense...and white will be in a position to capture the opposing King "faster" than black could do.

[Matrix]

The problem with a chess analogy is that each piece has a very limited capability to move, and you as an opponent know each pieces limitations in advance. Also, each piece of the same level is equally powerful. In otherwords, my bishop is as powerful as your bishop. Not so in fighting. Your kick may be more powerful than mine, and your range of motion may be much more diverse. However, like chess, we should always aim to win in the least number of moves. :)

[old jong]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
No, the "doctrine" was first developed by a WWII American fighter pilot and is known as the OODA loop theory

Go read your own general Shwartskoff!!! (I think you mistake the blitzkrieg for the luftwaffen strategy over England who witch also known as the blitz!)
No! The theory was from Germany! It was the concept of army mobility over the trenchs strategy of WWI.Like in the " ligne Magineaut" of the Frenchs. Or when they invaded countriesin a very short times.Or...in the desert storm war!...;)