Bjj/gjj is. It's easy to throw a bunch of tough guys in the room, let them beat each other's up and then the ones that survive are great. It takes actual effort to build somebody into a strong martial artist.
You say one thing then in the very next breath describe why it's not actually the case, lol.
>If you're so tough, then figure out a way to make Private Pyle get with the program!
>if you're so tough, then stick this needle in your eye to prove it!
Implicitly granting the fact that it
can, indeed, become an increasingly large PITA to find ways to make some certain person(s) get with the program; to such an extent that it can start interfering with your service to
everyone else in fact, too their detriment. Indeed, in certain cases to such an extent that it is
not even a feasible possibility altogether. (Such is the unfairness of fairness.)
There's a subterranean thread i notice that often runs through conversations of these sort, that really is more on an ideological level before it is particular to whatever practical circumstances that are the matter at hand... that really is more on the level of
sentiment before it is on an ideological level.
There is a distinction, between the logic of
testing someone, and the logic of
tutoring someone. In the latter case, it is often assumed, as a given, that 'failure is not an option'; that whatever contingencies may be the case you have no other option but to adjust fire, however it may be possible and to whatever extent it may be possible, as constrained by the indelible limitations of scarcity in all forms. Obviously, this mode tends to be the domain mostly of personal apprenticeships and the like, where greater information and control is available. And obviously, on a visceral level, most people are highly attracted to this mode due to insecurities, the aversion a narcissised self-narrative or less 'reality coherent' idealization of self has to being devalidated (by failure), and over all the creeping existential dread incurred by the abstract idea of 'being left behind'.
In the former case, failure is not only a option in the design, but in fact the
intention of the design; a test is a filter who's sieve is some criteria intended to select for some desirable virtue, attribute, or qualities in the elements so tested; often constructed to provide further information along a sliding range or grade of those criteria (ie, being able to tell what has 'higher performance'); intended to
remove, exclude, or separate away elements that are not coherent with the system using it, without which the system
cannot function properly.
In reality, you often have elements of both in a good training program, tuned to various levels too a golden mean to best suit your needs. A
large scale training program, most certainly,
cannot possibly be made to serve any great value
without possibilities of failure or exclusion on some levels; where the teleological implications of further
accommodation of some malfunctioning element would start to become increasingly
antiethical to the systems teleological purpose; where the system would start
rewarding malfunction, creating moral hazard.
Totally agree though that appealing to part 3 doesn't tend to make money in the long run
Ah, no, you may have missed my meaning there. On the contrary, there's
a lot of money to be made by marketing to part 3, money you will be missing out on if you want to be 'real'... as you yourself have ably argued in this thread.
Not too any great extreme of course. But the inherent logic, or 'tension' if you will, is there; ease up on the gas pedal, potentially get more customers. The incentives are all there: how far will you go?
Of course in reality things can often be somewhat more nuanced than that. Certainly, if you are very smart, you can find ways to market a gym that adheres too legitimacy. Indeed, you can say the most
important marketing is how you 'market' yourself
inside your own store; you can market it in ways that appeals to the abstract satisfaction that people get from having 'correct options' (a 'Will Too Right' i sometimes call it), along with that which can allow them to win arguments; '
of course it is better for a gym to teach a martial art that is actually effective, why else would you do martial arts, right?' And et cetera. Market it in a way that portrays facing the reality of people's abilities and making real improvements and being comfortable with where you stand in relation too other people as high status, unlike the obviously low status fakers, cheaters, and charlatans of mcdojos who never know themselves or anything else, and so on. And indeed, it could well be possible to make even more money through this manner, or if not, you can at least make it so you are perceived as
higher status (which, for humans, tends to be the more valuable currency), and also the alleviation of not selling your soul to the devil. but...
But... it is much
easier to make money by selling that unwarrented self-importance. All for the low price of a sociopathic disregard for long term consequences or the overall health of ones tribal organism in general. A trifling sum in many humans' point of view.
One of the most common, and perhaps impactful, sources of narcissistic injury, is when a subject
discovers limits too their own power; so often, when there is something that causes them stress, or discomfort, or upsets them in some manner, and
they can't see a way to make it go away. A classic example can be a child who's parent discovered them stealing, or lying, or shirking, and chastises them with a punishment. Or a soldier sitting in a foxhole under bombardment of artillery so many miles away. Or someone on the internet saying things they don't like.
Obviously, such a sort of situation is something that our present milieu often tries to avoid or obviate however possible.
And obviously, such a situation is exactly what needs to happen for a person to
grow as a person; events that definitively
refactor their perception, suddenly ejecting them from a
solipsistic mode of thought, where the lizard brain believes itself to be all powerful and has no thinking with regards to the workings of creation beyond
lashing out at dimly perceived sources of stress, into a
world entangled mode of thought, where the subject starts seeing
greater wholes in which it is
component; in which there are
definite processes that operate in accordance with
definite principles; in which it sees it must
participate in certain processes, observe certain
rituals in
certain ways, in order to remove certain stressors, or gain certain validation, to achieve certain outcomes. That which it sees can perform
better or worse.
Or in other words, the child learns that observing precepts set out by the omniscient father figure results in cessation of undesired punishments, and even good things it likes happening. Even if the punishments involved may be the most horrible and abusive you can think of, as long as
they are consistent, as long as the kid can observe
a pattern in behavior, they can discover
a new feeling of control over their destiny, and
that is what makes all the difference, they will still be able to make it, what will allow them to be able to make it out in the wide world in general, so full of things outside ones direct will. (Which, all happens to also be part of why rates of ptsd in the military and elsewhere have steadily skyrocketed over the years, in spite of the fact that it may appear, on an objective level, that conditions and situations faced are on the whole far less odious than many previous large scale conflicts heretofore. The important part is not really what the event itself is like, but
their *perception* of control with regards too the events, and
conditioned response [or lack thereof] to stress.)
In a gym that is 'real', such situations are not just
an inevitable part, but in fact
the whole point. So of course, if such is your target demographic, the question basically becomes: how do you, as an aspiring gym owner in peoria who likes the idea of teaching an obscure combat sport, provide
a childhood upbringing they never got?