By the end of the 1980s, after 20 years of research into kinesiology I had a pretty good layman’s handle on how our emotions, thoughts and sensations (extero, intero, proprioceptive, vestibular) are translated into movement through the integrative action of the CNS. As a result of this understanding I developed a heightened sense of the processes involved in performing a decisive act. I realised that when I perform any such action, I first form a holistic impression of needed response which consists of 1) a visual impression of the effect I need to cause, 2)a kinesthetic sensation of the physical act, 3) a sense of those generative forces by which the action can be carried out and 4) an emotional charge.
One of the most interesting things about this heightened awareness was that it extended to my observation of others engaged in physical activity. When observing someone performing an action, I became able to sense, within myself, the impression of their movement. And this occurred not only in tandem with their performance, but sometimes before the action even took place. In other words, I became able to sense what the person was going to do before they did it.
On the surface of it, this sounds off the wall. For a long time I experienced this phenomenon without being able to provide a scientific reference. Back in the late 80s/early 90s I’d talk about it to my students in Horsham. I used to talk about Tyson and how I could pick up on the violent intent of the man and the forces he was generating, and using that impression as my representation, how I could translate it into my own performance. I’ve always been a good mimic, but this was a new level of empathy. At that time I would also talk about being able to predict a mistake that a student was about to make before he’d completed the action, and how I could pinpoint where in his performance the source of the problem lay. All of this is because I was able to connect with him on neural level.
I mentioned this once in the presence of Mark Chen, who was studying for a doctorate in sports science, and his eyes lit up. He told me that he’d been reading a paper which gave examples of a similar phenomenon. Next time he came down, he gave me a copy. Within the text, there was an example of a crowd watching a boxing match and how they were mimicking the fighter they were supporting and going through the emotional contours of hitting and being hit, as if they were actually fighting. There was also an example of a piano teacher being able to predict, before the student played the note, that he was going to make a mistake. The article talked about the way that the same neuro-chemical and motor networks were being influenced in the observer as were being used by the performer.
It would seem to me that in evolutionary terms, the ability to imitate would be an important tool: monkey see, monkey do. Taken further, the ability to pick up on nuances that might not be so obvious could give a survival advantage. For most of evolutionary history, there was no language. So you would need to transmit physical skills in a more direct way.
The truth is that talk can be very misleading. No amount of talk can replace what millions of years of evolution have provided.
In martial arts we have a lot of talk, and most of it is worthless. But the real problem in the martial arts comes down to what the monkey sees. Often, that’s a load of bollocks, too.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty easy to make a shallow imitation of bad movement, but it can be difficult for some to pick up on the essential underlying pattern that characterizes a really good performance. This is because all successful performance derives from the adaptation of fundamental reflex/behavioural patterns that I'm always on about. You need these to even get started. So even if we lay aside all the bad examples of performance and assume that the example is a good one, in order for this ‘transmission’ of physical skill to work successfully at a deeper level than just superficial mimickry, it’s crucial that the learner has got a good grounding in fundamental natural movement.
Nature has bequeathed a set of patterned responses that can be adapted and modified, but which are inherent in everyone at birth. As a child develops, the patterns will either be enhanced or dampened, depending upon whether they are used, and how. By the time most people come to martial arts in their teens or twenties, the patterns have atrophied to some extent. There are examples of natural athletes going into martial arts, but most people haven’t enhanced their fundamental patterns beyond the level needed to get by in modern life--which is not much.
Most of the martial arts are so motor-oriented in their pedagogical methods that rather than learning to move and beginning to re-activate some of these patterns, the student often overwrites the natural pattern with an inferior motor-oriented prescribed martial arts response. If the learner has only practiced in a stereotyped way, then even when he tries to imitate a good performer, he often ends up producing a version of the performance that is almost a parody. He doesn’t have the wiring for anything else.
This is where my philosophy of instruction is different to other martial arts teachers. I don’t want you to imitate me on a superficial level, but to empathise with my movement and that of other successful performers on a neural level. If you’ve got a good example to empathise with, then the innate reflex and behavioural patterns coupled with the phenomenon of mirror neurons will provide a significant advantage in any physical endeavour.
On that level, you don’t need a teacher; you can learn to teach yourself by observation, analysis, and trial and error. That's what I did. But there must be a strong grounding in fundamental movement to start with. If martial arts have taken you away from the fundamental patterns, then you have to first let go of the motor-oriented responses and get back to what you were born with. This process can be painful for some long-term martial artists who have been rewarded for producing motor-oriented patterns, but the result is worth it.
If you develop the facility of empathy, you will also be able to guard against one of the biggest downsides of imitation in athletics, which is this: all top athletes win with performances that are less than optimal. They all make some mistakes. If you imitate someone blindly, you may find yourself taking on board a bad habit which the athlete is actually trying to get rid of! But if you develop an internal sense of movement, then you’ll be able to pick up on what the athlete is doing wrong, and edit it out of the impression you choose to take from that person.
As an instructor, I come in at the level of heightened empathetic perception that I talked about in the opening of this article. Like the piano teacher in Mark Chen’s scientific journal, I can sense what you’re doing wrong because when I watch you move, I’m doing it with you internally. That’s how I teach, one-on-one.
In writing about this, I want to make you aware of how this phenomenon of empathy works in learning a physical skill. This is a personal experience of it. I’m talking about how I’ve got to where I am. Some people reading this won’t be able to get out of their left brain enough to even try to sense the things I’m talking about. But for those who want to, I’m giving you all the information I can and I want to encourage you to explore it.
Here are some more links about mirror neurons. Have a read. There’s way more information than I can provide--here are a few links to get you started.
http://www.brainconnection.com/content/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neur
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.h
http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/200
http://www.interdisciplines.org/mirror/p
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
stevemorris- stevemorris
- Morris No Holds Barred
Comments
Cutting edge scientific research, employing state of the art equipment and methodologies resulting in powerful evidence supporting your views and training methods. It's ironic that the often 'left brain' obsessed scientific approach has provided strong support for your more 'fanciful' claims. I'm refering to your
"being able to predict a mistake that a student was about to make before he’d completed the action, and how I could pinpoint where in his performance the source of the problem lay. All of this is because I was able to connect with him on neural level."
On the surface this sounds almost mystical. I'd''ve had trouble with this sort of claim some time ago, although the references you provide would have removed those doubts. The interplay of unconscious and conscious parts of the seem to allow you this capacity, and similar capacities would appear to be available to us all.
The link to anticipating an opponents attack/s is then a simple lateral step, only available if,as you say people
"get out of their left brain enough to...try to sense the things I’m talking about."
In general terms I used to have very limited success in this regard but am much more open to a 'right brain' approach. Or more accurately, an integration of right and left, as it were. That is directly due to your encouragement, in your writings and in training.
I'd encourage anyone to try this and related 'right brain' training as it really dos open up so so so much more to your training.
instinct and intuition, two very non-scientific concepts, on the face of it, which do seem to be area's of research now. The use of fMRI et. al. really allows so much deeper investigation, although it takes imagination to utilise such equipment inventively.
I really enjoyed the final link. The paper by Gallese gives an insight into critical, yet inventive thinking, in collaboration with cutting edge science. I really like the 'lucky' finding of the external process firing the same neurons as the internal process, with the monkeys and the peanuts, ie. they noticed that the monkey AND/OR the experimenter holding the peanut elicited the same neural response in the critical brain region. That piece of 'luck' spawned a whole avenue of research, fantastic!
You have to try stuff, be inventive, to get luck like that. That, i suppose is what you're doing presently, and have been doing for years Steve, you have to be doing it to benefit from 'happy accidents'.
The breadth of parallels between the scientific world and the martial arts world have always surprised me! At university, there was a bloke who was renowned in his field, he was a prolific researcher, publishing many studies, always got a lot of funding. But he was almost completely risk-free. It was such dull plodding one step at a time stuff. Safe research. My first supervisor, on the other hand, was more of a maverick. He was more visionary and took risks. He received much less in the way of funding, was less prolific and far less well known.
Incidentally, one was a lot more fun than the other, and ones research was pretty closely related to what you've posted on mirror neurons, while the others concerned glucose and endurance training. I'll let people decide for themselves which was which.
I wonder if Einstein was visionary or plodding?