We have a problem...
Did you folks read what Ian wrote above? He described the classic double-blinded randomized, controlled trial. It is the gold standard in medicine (and other branches of science and agriculture) for proving the intrinsic worth of a technique or substance.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
What you are potentially describing is an "unblinded" test. Then it doesn't mean squat. If uke "expects" to be knocked out because uke knows that uke is getting "the good stuff", then uke is not blinded. There is no way to know how much of uke's response is due to being eager to please, having psychological faith in the attack, etc. If tori "expects" to knock the person out because tori knows he is giving "the good stuff", then tori is not blinded. Tori may consciously or unconsciously do more because he knows this thing works and so he will do what it takes.Someone that actually does Kyusho...and not just theorize, but works KO's, should apply it.
You'd never get something like that published in a peer-reviewed journal. Nobody would believe you.
The goal is to find if there is any intrinsic value to the technique, and not evaluate the tori's ability to land a good one on someone irrespective of the point, angle of attack, degree of penetration, or sequence. If it's THAT difficult to teach to someone, one should step back and reflect a bit.
I understand that one must have a certain level of competency to do most things in life. Medicine understands that it takes an MD to practice medicine. Still, Eli Lilly cannot require that only Eli Lilly scientists give the drug that they are testing. They'd never get their results published. They'd never get FDA approval. They'd never get past our technology review panel. But consider that pharmaceutical companies have been subjecting their new drugs to double-blinded RCTs on a regular basis, along with toxicology tests. And consider that the pharmaceutical industry has been making more money than any other sector of the economy in the last two decades. If they can do it, why can't those that teach kyusho?
THINK!!!
There are ways. One shouldn't try to bite off too much with one test. One shouldn't try to prove the world with one test. It's best to take one thing at a time.
One that I have thought of is proving the concept of sequential striking. What would you say to having a controlled study where a series of points were struck, but in different orders. Sequence A is not expected to produce a result. Sequence B is. Person goes from room 1 to room 2 to room 3. In each room is a person that knows how to strike a point, but they do not know what is being tested. They are told "hit here" or "press here." They know the relevance of the point, but do not know what came before or will come after. The recipient doesn't know either. Ideally Sequence A finishes with the same technique as Sequence B, but the pattern in Sequence B is known to facilitate the response of the final attack.
THAT would past the muster of a DB, RCT.
- Bill
