angryclown
Jingang
I didn't even start to watch this video. I feel like I know all I need to just by reading the title.
The title says it all
- Thread starter angryclown
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Edmond Chow
Wuji
He provides a lot of translated material for the English crowd, which intrigued me before. He also trains multiple styles, which probably also attributes to not getting deep in any of them. He's kind of like the Kung Fu Ronin guy, a kind of "scholar" class.
There's value in the "scholar" class for spreading and preserving knowledge. Sometimes helping fight the BS if they're true scholars. But perhaps we shouldn't expect much from their demonstrations and ability. That hasn't been their focus.
If they're humble, they would probably point out that shortcoming. If they don't, they're probably suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect or trying to dishonestly build an image that they're not for whatever reason (e.g. profit, attention seeking, etc.).
There's value in the "scholar" class for spreading and preserving knowledge. Sometimes helping fight the BS if they're true scholars. But perhaps we shouldn't expect much from their demonstrations and ability. That hasn't been their focus.
If they're humble, they would probably point out that shortcoming. If they don't, they're probably suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect or trying to dishonestly build an image that they're not for whatever reason (e.g. profit, attention seeking, etc.).
chrisdonnahee
Jingang
Ah yes, the famed Dummy-Kungfu Effect
angryclown
Jingang
I actually don't have any problems with Yang Hai. Although his interwebs presence is more recent, he was practicing and teaching and doing his thing for a long time before it became cool. Like everyone else, he got what he got and that's what his understanding is. What he does is not necessarily what I'm looking for, but at least he really learned from someone at some point and practices whatever that is.
It's a bit of a sidetrack, but this is a silly thread, anyways, so anything is fair game-- the Dunning Kruger effect isn't a real thing. More specifically, the method of statistical analysis they used provides the same results when applied to randomly generated sets of numbers, so their data analysis is actually kind of meaningless. Beyond that, even if the numbers were good, their analysis is kind of forced. Like, they interpreted it as "the less you know, the more you think you know", but the exact same data could have been interpreted as "people like to think of themselves as 'normal'". So, as I like to say, people who believe in the Dunning-Kruger Effect are the best examples of it.
It's a bit of a sidetrack, but this is a silly thread, anyways, so anything is fair game-- the Dunning Kruger effect isn't a real thing. More specifically, the method of statistical analysis they used provides the same results when applied to randomly generated sets of numbers, so their data analysis is actually kind of meaningless. Beyond that, even if the numbers were good, their analysis is kind of forced. Like, they interpreted it as "the less you know, the more you think you know", but the exact same data could have been interpreted as "people like to think of themselves as 'normal'". So, as I like to say, people who believe in the Dunning-Kruger Effect are the best examples of it.
