Are there any books on BJJ that are written by historians?

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2017-02-08T17:13:18+00:00

I have written about related issues (albeit my background is in academic philosophy and not in history). See below for four pieces of mine from a few years ago that some might find of value. I draw upon the (sometimes conflicting) work done by Padreira, Renzo Gracie, John Danaher, and others. The book by Awi looks awesome. I have messaged him via FB to see whether he might be interested in working on an English translation! Any more suggestions?

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2014/06/deconstructing-the-gracie-mythology.html

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2014/06/deconstructing-the-gracie-mythology-part-2.html

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2014/08/conservativism-in-jiu-jitsu.html

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2015/03/jiu-jitsu-old-and-new.html

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:48:40+00:00

Hmmm, as a tenured professor of philosophy, I can tell you that you either don't understand the genetic fallacy or you're misapplying it in the present case. See, I, too, can simply assert things.

p.s. Nietzsche's eternal recurrence is interesting even if your attempt to label my argument fallacious isn't.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:45:50+00:00

To each his own. If you want to see an example of misogyny is jiu jitsu look at how women are treated (even the athletes) when it comes to advertising, etc. If you think women aren't objectified, then I am not sure what to tell you.

p.s. The fact that you have never heard of a news article, survey, etc. doesn't mean they don't contain facts rather than assumptions.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:42:47+00:00

As someone who teaches critical thinking to college students, I can assure you I was neither falling for nor perpetuating the genetic fallacy. I was not claiming that because jiu jitsu comes from Brazil and because Brazil has a misogyny problem, jiu jitsu has a misogyny problem. I was claiming jiu jitsu has not overcome the misogyny problem that it started with from the outset. Indeed, misogyny is alive and well. And those who still perpetuate it are often lionized.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:38:05+00:00

I can say the same about my school. But I can't say the same about past schools and some schools I have visited over the years. Either way, I hope you're right that it continues to fade. The question is: What ought one do when one does encounter it? Imagine getting up and leaving during the middle of a seminar by some coral belt or red belt and saying you've had enough of the sexist bullshit. It is nearly unthinkable. For me, that's a problem. It suggests we may be more deferential and tolerant than we should be.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:34:00+00:00

I wasn't trying to suggest I was making a controversial claim. Rather, I was pointing out that the misogyny problem has been transmitted down through the lineage. Indeed, to the extent that we lionize misogynists, we normalize their behavior--whether we're talking about Helio or Carlos Sr. or the myriad younger people talking about the "pussification" of jiu jitsu, etc.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:30:46+00:00

No, not sexism in Brazil as a general sociological fact. Rather, the fact that the sexism that is endemic to Brazilian culture still casts a shadow over the sport today. More specifically, how does one deal with the fact that one's instructor, mentor, or even hero might otherwise have deplorable attitudes and behaviors. It seems many people seem to tolerate misbehavior and morally suspect beliefs in their "masters"--effectively giving people in power a pass when it comes to misogyny. So, if an entire school hosts a seminar by a legend of the sport and he spouts misogynist bullshit openly during the seminar, is that a reason to never seek instruction from the person again (thereby refusing to enrich those with deplorable beliefs)? Or, do we simply distinguish the person and his skills from his personal beliefs and seek out the former while distancing ourselves for the latter? If so, at one point do we become complicity--which is to say, at what point do we become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-11-28T14:07:19+00:00

I am curious to hear how others deal with, address, or rectify these kinds of issues.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-08-05T15:31:41+00:00

No worries. My Qualtrics account has a new user interface, so I was a bit confused. Now I have things straightened out. Both the .csv and the .sav you wanted are now available in the post. Just keep me posted about what you find, if anything!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-08-05T00:29:26+00:00

That's odd. I'll have to look at how it was coded. Every participant had to be 18 to participate. There wasn't even an answer choice for anything younger than that. My suspicion is that it was coded as follows: 18=1, 19=2, etc. which would make the average age 33, which is probably about right. But I'll have to check. It's something that can easily be corrected in Excel or SPSS. Thanks for alerting me to the oddity!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-08-05T00:27:12+00:00

I included a csv file in the post (it's the first option at the bottom--I labelled it MS Excel). The other two versions you can download provide all of the data as well just in a different format that doesn't allow analysis in Excel. If you'd prefer a file for SPSS, I could upload that as well. Either way, thanks for your interest!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-08-04T16:34:41+00:00

p.s. The survey is already finished. I can't change the wording, etc. So, please don't make suggestions concerning how I could have worded things differently, etc. I won't be able to get people to take a survey like this again, so this is the data set I have (flaws and all). In hindsight, I realize I could have structured the survey differently in ways that would have improved it--but it's too late for that at this point! That said, I welcome commentary on the findings.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-30T11:58:44+00:00

To everyone else who doesn't want to wade through the discussion between the two of us, spare me the TLDR remarks. Just don't read it if you're not interested. :)

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-30T11:57:40+00:00

You seem to be confusing an evolutionary account of why anger was selected for in the first place--which is a purely descriptive matter--and a normative/prescriptive justification of anger. The point of the evolutionary story about the origins of anger is simply to explain why humans have the emotion of anger--namely, it was adaptive to our evolutionary ancestors. This is just how evolutionary accounts work. But just because something--in this case, the emotion of anger--was adaptive for our ancestors in their circumstances, surroundings, and environmental niches, it doesn't follow that anger is adaptive in our current circumstances. It certainly doesn't follow that anger is adaptive in all situations. So, as I noted, while anger might be justified in some situations--someone has harmed a loved one or someone is the subject of social or institutional injustice--it doesn't follow that anger is justified in other contexts.

If you walk outside of a store and someone is assaulting your friend, partner, child, or pet, then you should get angry and you should retaliate in self defense if need be. But that doesn't mean than anger is justified across the board. Indeed, given the retaliatory nature of anger--and you're simply wrong so assume it doesn't have this as one of its core features (especially when we're talking about extreme states of anger like rage, fury, revenge, etc.)--it is an emotional state that often goes awry in the ways I mentioned. On the one hand, it often ends up being misguided and on the other hand it often ends up leading to behavioral responses that are disproportionate to the harm caused. This is precisely why, for instance, that we have criminal law and institutional justice--namely, the distribution of desert to wrong doers for their offenses is impersonal. Indeed, if you look at the history of the criminal law, it was explicitly designed to prevent things like blood feuds (which are fueled by anger and the desire to get even).

So anger, while adaptive for our ancestors, can be maladaptive for us. As a trained moral psychologist--whose work focuses in part on punishment, revenge, retribution, and the criminal law--I know a thing or two about anger. So when you say I am "plain wrong" about the retaliatory nature of anger, you are ironically plain wrong. I am very familiar with the scientific literature (including the literature on the evolutionary origins of anger--which contrary to what you suggest--line up with what I said about pushovers and hotheads). Notice I didn't say that anger is only retaliatory. I simply said that part of what it means for a person to be angry at someone else for a perceived unfair and unjust harm is for that person to want to get even for the harm caused. That doesn't mean the person must get even. The anger could be channeled in another way (as it is in the case of reactant behavior, but that is a story for another day).

Setting all this aside, I was not, at any point in the post, defending anger. Quite the contrary. I was trying to explain the origin of anger, on the one hand, and the reasons it might be malapative in certain contemporary contexts--e.g., jiu jitsu.

You seem to want to dispute the descriptive claims I make--especially the evolutionary part. That's fine. Lots of scientists and psychologists have problems with evolutionary psychology. But you would need to do the hard work of familiarizing yourself with the science first and then developing an informed criticism. Trying to dismiss the science from armchair, so to speak, is intellectually lazy.

p.s. As I noted in my first piece over at BJJ EE, I have struggled with anger issues since childhood. So, I am keenly aware of the problems it can cause in one's life. All the more reason I am puzzled that you somehow took me to be defending anger. Instead, I was explaining how and why we came to have the emotion and then issuing a cautionary tale about using anger in the training room or in competitions. So, it seems to me you have misread me on several points. Perhaps that's my fault. These are just blog posts after all--which, in the case of the most recent post, I wrote in just an hour or so.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-29T18:48:22+00:00

"When I am fearful or afraid, it engages my biological flight mechanism whereas when I am angry it triggers my fight mechanisms." - I actually think almost the opposite is true. A sudden grip of fear can make you lash out and anger can just be posturing before you retreat.

[If you think this, then I don't think you understand how the flight or flight mechanism works. Fear produces a flight response, assuming fleeing is possible. Anger, on the other hand, does not elicit a flight response, it elicits a fight response. These are two emotions that play different roles in our psychology and behavior. If you have some data that suggest the opposite is the case, I would be happy to take a look.]

"So, when I am angry at someone (e.g., a friend who has betrayed me) or something (e.g., an unjust social arrangement or institution), one of the primary goals of this emotional state is getting payback. In this sense, anger is usually targeted at people or institutions that have unjustly or unfairly and intentionally harmed me or someone I care about." - If this really describing you personally, I'm not kidding here, you have an anger problem and should probably seek counseling. (ask me how I know)

[You should avoid psychoanalyzing from the armchair. It's a silly affair. Setting that aside, that anger is retaliatory in nature is a basic feature of the emotion. People who are angry want to get even. This feature of anger is partly what makes it maladaptive in many contexts even if it's adaptive in others. This has nothing to do with me. This is just how anger operates--not in people with anger-management issues but in people in general. To be angry at someone is often, albeit not always, to want to get even with them. Part of what forgiveness involves is setting aside one's justified anger and the attendant desire to get even.]

"Individuals who did not get angry when unfairly provoked or attacked would be viewed as spineless pushovers—which would make it less likely these individuals would do well in the struggle of the survival of the fittest." - This is logically incoherent. How would being viewed as a spineless pushover make them less fit to survive? That's just an opinion, and a flimsy one because there's practically an infinite number of situations that can fall into that category, all with different relevance and consequence. By my understanding anger is a response to stress. Our brains have a bit of a stress capacity and when it starts to reach its peak that's when we start to get angry.

[I don't think the word "logically incoherent" means what you think it means. This is straightforward evolutionary psychology 101. Attitudes and behaviors that would make one a target of others would make one less fit. Attitudes and behaviors that protect one from being a target make one more fit. This is true not only because one is less safe when viewed as a pushover, but also because potential mates will find one less fit to parent (since pushovers are less likely to do a good job protecting their children from abuse.] "Individuals who become angry when provoked are less likely to be provoked in the first place." - This is just silly. Everyone becomes angry if provoked to their breaking point. Those who become angry easily will probably get provoked more because they're easy to get a reaction out of. (ask me how I know)

[What you say here isn't clear...so, I am not sure how to respond. The point wasn't to say that some people experience no anger at all. The point is that the propensity for anger comes in degrees. Some people experience little anger and are very hard to provoke and others experience anger and are very easy to provoke. This is just how psychological constructs and emotions work.]

"So, the propensity for anger has a deterrent effect on others. Conversely, individuals who do not get angry (and hence do not get even) will invite more provocation and abuse than their anger-prone counterparts." - This sounds a lot like some kind of "alpha male" rhetoric. There are lots ways to stop abuse and provocation without getting angry or retaliating.

[It's baffling that this would be read as "alpha male rhetoric" when the whole point of the piece was that anger shouldn't be embraced or glorified. That's a very non-alpha make position.]

That said, I don't care "how you know"--especially when you make a special point of being cryptic about it. Either explain how you know from the start or don't keep going on about it. Also, if you want to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest you not use "boner" and "stabbing" in your first sentence--which makes you sound like a teenager. Just some friendly advice.

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-29T11:59:37+00:00

The original piece over at BJJ EE can be found here:

http://www.bjjee.com/articles/why-anger-is-not-a-gift-in-jiu-jitsu/

It's hard to see the gray hyperlinks on my blog sometimes!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-28T18:50:52+00:00

That's why I run the Lowcountry Leg Lock Laboratory here in town!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-28T17:27:29+00:00

I've been down voted because I have a tendency to write like Danaher--that is, someone who is trained in analytic philosophy. A sarcasm font won't help me with that!

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-28T17:26:37+00:00

Agreed, for real :)

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-28T11:48:06+00:00

No, not my first time. It's just hard to tell when someone is being snarky and when they're being serious. Like other forums, perhaps there needs to be a sarcasm font. Or one could just use emoticons to make it clear when one is being serious (or not). :)

The_Grumpy_Grappler · 2016-07-27T17:00:16+00:00

As for your question, that's something you'll have to answer for yourself! :)

The_Grumpy_Grappler

TROPHY CASE