Those are some reasonable conclusions and operant principles. At the loose, big picture level, I use those same basic assumptions myself. However, it's not enough to conclude that they sound reasonable and just leave it at that. If we're interested in actually knowing, and in having truly accurate information, we must then test those assertions by systematically and methodically doing a comparative analysis of each and all of the methods we're considering. Doing this would require providing full, comprehensive and accurate details of all of them, in non-subjective universally standardized terms.
Exercises that lead to the exact same physical result, must then be the same at the core with only superficial differences.
Nuh uh. Not always. If the goal is to simply walk across the street, there are hundreds of variations of ways in which someone could do it, all of them successful, and some of them radically different from one another. The same would be true of the goal, "I want to get stronger". You may say, "But our goals are so much more specific than that." To which I'd respond, "Are they?" How much
more? And how do you know? Using subjectively nebulous phrases like "...creating and strengthening certain neural connections, sensory awareness of one's "innards" and how to move them in particular ways, at will, stretching and/or thickening of connective tissues and strength-building of selected muscle groups" doesn't provide us with the specificity necessary to make any kind of objective comparison between one method and another. It's not even clear whether the goal is physically possible
in the first place with that kind of phrasing. There is certainly not enough specificity to draw an untested conclusion that one particular method is far and away superior to all others at producing such goals.
What would be required, if anyone were truly interested in a legitimate, objective comparison, is for all of the stated goals of each individual method for consideration to be enumerated in specific, objective, achievable and quantifiably measurable terms. Those with differing goals would have to be eliminated right off the bat on the basis of apples and oranges. Next, those remaining methods with identical goals would have to be fully disclosed in painstaking detail. There would be no opportunity for further secrecy or even discretion at that point. Everything, every single aspect of every method, would be laid bare for critical analysis. Next, there would have to be what is known as a significant sample size, a large enough representative sample of practitioners of each method so as to be able to statistically mitigate against factors inherent in an individual practitioner being responsible for the results displayed by that practitioner. Put simply, there would have to be several people, preferably of differing age, sex, athleticism, body type, background, and experience level, representing each and every one of the methods under consideration.
This representative sample would have to additionally be large enough to survive the next round of filtering and still provide a significant sample size, which is that the individuals representing each method would have to be further selected for the criterion of representing that method at its maturity, and further, at an equivalent maturity level to every other method. IOW, we couldn't have a couple beginners in method A being put up against a few relatively intermediate practitioners of method B, and both groups against a raw noob, an intermediate, and an absolute world expert of method C. No fair comparison could be made thereof. Outliers on both extremes would have to be eliminated....both the very good and the very bad. Each method would have to be judged on an average
representative sample of those representing the mature practice of that method.
All told, we're talking a helluva lot of work here just putting the comparison together. Preferably, we'd have to turn around and do the whole process over again, several times, with independent parties conducting the comparison each time. Unfortunately, that's what's actually necessary and required before we are justified in bandying about claims and proclamations of the superiority of one particular method over another. Short of that, we're all just talking out of our respective asses about our subjective experiences.
Last edited by Chris McKinley on Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:06 am, edited 2 times in total.