cdobe and Chris discuss things

[Chris McKinley]

I know it's early in the year, but I nominate this thread for Best Pseudoscience Thread of 2009. I have a feeling it's going to go all the way.

[cdobe]

I know it's early in the year, but I nominate this thread for Best Pseudoscience Thread of 2009. I have a feeling it's going to go all the way.

Some people have asked you before, but you didn't give an answer. But since you're bringing it up again: Are you a scientist ? I made a search at pubmed, but I didn't find any physiology related papers by a C MCKinley. There's only a Carol MCkinley (surgeon) and a gynecologist from Scotland.

TIA

CD

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

Bored and feel like doing some more trolling, I see. Okay....let me go ahead and embarrass you yet again.

RE: "Some people have asked you before, but you didn't give an answer. But since you're bringing it up again: Are you a scientist ?". Total bullshit. No one has ever asked me about that on this forum without a response. In addition, it would be completely unnecessary as I have been very explicit and transparent about my background as a neurophysiologist. Everyone on this board has known that for years. I've also been quite open about having changed my career to that of a consultant nowadays, but again....old news. Everybody who cares already knows it.

Listen, kid, if you're going to troll one of the long-timers around here, do your damned homework first. Everybody knows who I am and what I'm about. I'm going to make nonspecific smart-ass comments that aren't aimed at any particular individual like my previous one on an occasional basis. You know why? Because that's what we all do here on EF. If you can't handle it, go whine to the mods. I prolifically put out very specific on-topic posts with plenty of specific and objective statements for you to disagree with if you care to have a crack at one. If you don't have what it takes to do so, then don't wait around just to troll an occasional off-the-cuff comment from me. It makes you look like a little trolling bitch.

[cdobe]

Chris,

my only 40 year old stripling , I was asking a straight forward question, that yusuf and affa asked before, not too long ago. You're lecturing everyone, from the university professor to the venerable martial arts veteran, whether asked or not, so it's only fair to ask about your credentials, isn't it? You have pretty much answered my question by dodging it the way you did. Also, whether you've changed your occupation or not doesn't matter. Fact is, that there are no neurophysiology publications by a Chris McKinley. Everyone, who is into science will know what that means.
ψεύδω/ pseudo -> pretending

And BTW, I have been around on the Flowah since 2000 or 2001, starting to actively participate in 2004.

Now back to ignoring you ...

CD

cdobe,

Bored and feel like doing some more trolling, I see. Okay....let me go ahead and embarrass you yet again.

RE: "Some people have asked you before, but you didn't give an answer. But since you're bringing it up again: Are you a scientist ?". Total bullshit. No one has ever asked me about that on this forum without a response. In addition, it would be completely unnecessary as I have been very explicit and transparent about my background as a neurophysiologist. Everyone on this board has known that for years. I've also been quite open about having changed my career to that of a consultant nowadays, but again....old news. Everybody who cares already knows it.

Listen, kid, if you're going to troll one of the long-timers around here, do your damned homework first. Everybody knows who I am and what I'm about. I'm going to make nonspecific smart-ass comments that aren't aimed at any particular individual like my previous one on an occasional basis. You know why? Because that's what we all do here on EF. If you can't handle it, go whine to the mods. I prolifically put out very specific on-topic posts with plenty of specific and objective statements for you to disagree with if you care to have a crack at one. If you don't have what it takes to do so, then don't wait around just to troll an occasional off-the-cuff comment from me. It makes you look like a little trolling bitch.

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

RE: "I was asking a straight forward question, that yusuf and affa asked before, not too long ago.". Again, and I'll type slowly so that even trolls can understand...I've never been asked that question without responding.

RE: You're lecturing everyone, from the university professor to the venerable martial arts veteran, whether asked or not, so it's only fair to ask about your credentials, isn't it?". I haven't lectured anyone. I made a single smartass comment that was not directed toward anyone. Apart from that, my only other post was as on-topic, specific, objective and scientific as anything provided on this thread thus far, and it was entirely by specific request. However, I'd be happy to engage in objective discussion and/or debate with any university professor or venerable martial arts veteran on this forum should they request it or should they find themselves in disagreement with any objective statement of mine. Once again, my credentials aren't in question. I've been a known quantity on this and other forums for many years.

RE: "Fact is, that there are no neurophysiology publications by a Chris McKinley. Everyone, who is into science will know what that means.". Rather than skulking around in weakstick, indirect insinuation, what it means is that I haven't published. Since I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, a Ph.D. in neurophysiology. To claim so would be dishonest and unethical in the extreme. "Everyone who is into science" will know that unless and until one receives a Ph.D. in any scientific discipline, one would never have had reason nor opportunity to publish a scientific paper under one's own name. But you knew that, didn't you?

RE: "And BTW, I have been around on the Flowah since 2000 or 2001, starting to actively participate in 2004.". Then you would be completely aware of my very transparent position on the issue since I started posting in 2002. Why would you even state something so stupid? Are you implying that there's someone other than you who has been posting for that time frame who doesn't know who I am and what I'm about? Good luck with that.

RE: "Now back to ignoring you ...". You mean, back to trolling me because you're too damn weak to post your own views in a convincing way or to provide substantial argument which holds up to scrutiny.

[Ian]

In addition, it would be completely unnecessary as I have been very explicit and transparent about my background as a neurophysiologist. Everyone on this board has known that for years.

Not everyone follows your posts that closely.

[Chris McKinley]

Ian,

That's why I stated that anyone who cares to know, already does. Not everyone cares to know. Frankly, this thread isn't about me or my long-transparent background. cdobe attempted to derail yet another thread by trolling, and he got shot down as always. If he wants to do more trolling, he needs to take it elsewhere so this thread can stay on-topic.

[cdobe]

cdobe,

RE: "I was asking a straight forward question, that yusuf and affa asked before, not too long ago.". Again, and I'll type slowly so that even trolls can understand...I've never been asked that question without responding.

Did I hit a raw nerve, there ?

no no... i'll admit it... that was a dig. and while i really should have phrased it more politely (again, i apologize)... my question still stands... what is the depth of your acquaintance with the biological literature (or social systems theory and cognitive psychology for that matter, re: emergent ethics)? aren't you an engineer or something?

Wrong ! I won the debate

RE: "Fact is, that there are no neurophysiology publications by a Chris McKinley. Everyone, who is into science will know what that means.". Rather than skulking around in weakstick, indirect insinuation, what it means is that I haven't published. Since I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, a Ph.D. in neurophysiology. To claim so would be dishonest and unethical in the extreme. "Everyone who is into science" will know that unless and until one receives a Ph.D. in any scientific discipline, one would never have had reason nor opportunity to publish a scientific paper under one's own name. But you knew that, didn't you?

You can publish without being a Ph.D.! If you would have contributed substantially to the work, one would expect that you're mentioned as a co-author.
BTW, I'm an artist. I've painted a beautiful picture for my mom, when I was in Kindergarten

RE: "Now back to ignoring you ...". You mean, back to trolling me because you're too damn weak to post your own views in a convincing way or to provide substantial argument which holds up to scrutiny.

I tend to agree with you on this topic. People read classical explanations of using the sinews or tendon strength and readily jump on the fascia bandwagon, because that would give them the satisfaction that they've been right all along. If a scientist tells them that you can't generate power from the fascia, they despise him, but yet they are longing for scientific approval.
I disagree with you concerning the possible role of the Golgi tendon organ in power generation, though. It can trigger a very powerful contraction that can be translated horizontally into a powerful technique. The contraction is proportional to the force that it has to compensate for, which can be quite powerful, considering that it can stop your own bodyweight from falling to the ground. You can try this, by deliberatly letting your knees collapse and let the body catch itself. Then you put your hands on a heavy bag and push on it while the body compensates for the falling mass.

CD

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

RE: "Did I hit a raw nerve, there ?". No, you simply levelled an untrue accusation.

RE: "Wrong ! I won the debate". Um......"actually i think i just remembered that you're a bio-mechanics specialist or surgeon or something like that, so if that's the case i'll eat crow on your familiarity with biological literature.". Also by affa, btw...in fact, it was the very next thing he wrote as a partial retraction to his just-prior post. For context, it was a comment of his that had occurred after he had just issued an apology to me. I therefore let it slide since he retracted the question himself.

RE: "You can publish without being a Ph.D.! If you would have contributed substantially to the work, one would expect that you're mentioned as a co-author.". You are apparently not familiar with how we do things on this side of the pond. In the actual scientific disciplines (sorry soft science guys), name placement is not only reserved for the Ph.D.'s, it's frequently further reserved for the primary and/or sponsoring Ph.D. researcher. Everybody else, and especially the non-Ph.D.'s, is an et al. In order to publish under one's own name as the primary researcher while still a non-Ph.D., one would have to have made a truly revolutionizing discovery, such as "E=mc2" or some such. While I have been responsible for writing the protocols and abstracts for a number of research submissions, I regret I have not been so fortunate or so brilliant to have made a discovery of that magnitude all by myself. I suppose on that level, you've got me.

RE: "I disagree with you concerning the possible role of the Golgi tendon organ in power generation, though.". I'm not sure exactly how that is agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll have to do a search to see which of my comments in that regard you are referencing and get back to you.

[cdobe]

RE: "I disagree with you concerning the possible role of the Golgi tendon organ in power generation, though.". I'm not sure exactly how that is agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll have to do a search to see which of my comments in that regard you are referencing and get back to you.

Re: Calf muscles: Their role in ima?

The Golgi tendon apparatus is a tiny structure at the juncture of tendon and muscle that is completely outside voluntary control. It does not even contain connections with the nervous system. It exists as a protective structure for when muscles are stretched too far too quickly to prevent damage to the skeletal system by causing the muscle fibers attached to it to contract in order to prevent further stretching.

As interesting as this mechanism is, it's actually very old news, and neijia mysticism fans and other New Agey types have glommed onto and attempted to co-opt this concept and wildly interpreted it in many different ways, each of which serves their particular unscientific agendas.

Hey Chris,
this is what I was referencing.

CD

[Chris McKinley]

Tom,

I'm gonna give you a pass because you're a mod and you also happen to be a nice guy, but if you lump me in again with cdobe as if I'm responsible for starting this crap, there's gonna be a problem. You know very well that I'm one of the most information-sharing posters we have on this forum with regard to topics such as this very thread, and that I give generously of my knowledge. I've done so for years, perhaps more than any other poster. You also know that cdobe has trolled me in various threads without my instigating it. I never start this crap with him, and in fact you know that I don't troll EF, period. If you'll notice, it was also me who explicitly called for him to take his trolling elsewhere so that we who wish to discuss this thread can do so without that type of interruption.

I appreciate your admonition to keep things on topic, but I'm already there....I've been exchanging specific on-topic information with Brady, for instance. I'm not going to take being called a liar. If you don't want that type of exchange on a thread, then I suggest that you moderate your trolls a little more stringently. I didn't start it, I don't want any part of it, and I've already returned to on-topic discussion with other non-trolling posters, but again, I'm not going to allow a troll to come on and slam my name with no moderator stepping in to call him out on it. Since you just did that very thing, I'm good with it, but I doubt it will last long until he's back trolling me on yet another thread. I'd love to be wrong, but please keep that in mind.

Further, though, I'll go you one better than what you've asked for and actually discuss the topic itself with cdobe since, in fairness, his most recent post seems to be topical, and frankly, I'd rather discuss the topic with him than argue....

cdobe,

RE: the Golgi apparatus. I'm still a bit confused in that what I wrote about that structure is still accurate. I'm not sure what you may be agreeing or disagreeing with in regard to it. If you're saying that it plays a powerful role in muscle cell activation under specific circumstances, then I'd have to agree. If you're possibly saying that we can bring its activation under conscious control for use in martial arts, I can't agree with that. Perhaps you're saying something else entirely. If so, I am certainly not understanding what your point is with regard to that structure.

[cdobe]

Tom,

it's Valentine's Day and I'm not supposed to express my feelings for Chris ?



You are right by stating that it doesn't matter whether someone is a published author or not, when he contributes something valuable on this forum. It is even more interesting to read about people's practical experiences, since you can always search the scientific literature for yourself, if you're interested in something particular. However, Chris constantly acts like he was some kind of a spokesman for science and I was just interested to know how qualified he really is. The best thing I remembered was his statement of being a "former neurophysiologist", but I didn't find any relevant scientist with that name. Years back, someone even insinuated that he was a professor in this field and no one disagreed. So I just directly asked him. Fair enough, don't you think ? I already do restrain myself from getting into discussions with him, although I have a lot of objections about his style and some of his content.

cdobe,

RE: the Golgi apparatus. I'm still a bit confused in that what I wrote about that structure is still accurate. I'm not sure what you may be agreeing or disagreeing with in regard to it. If you're saying that it plays a powerful role in muscle cell activation under specific circumstances, then I'd have to agree. If you're possibly saying that we can bring its activation under conscious control for use in martial arts, I can't agree with that. Perhaps you're saying something else entirely. If so, I am certainly not understanding what your point is with regard to that structure.

Chris,

the bit I was quoting left the impression, at least for me, that you were marginalizing the role of this organ. You also implied that it doesn't possibly play a role in the neijia arts. I say that it is possible to make use of this involuntary reaction, in the way I described. You can generate a powerful impulse from the ground and translate it through a relaxed (feeling) upper body into a short horizontal force that requires no winding up. It also has a springlike quality and can bounce your opponents force (or rather an equivalent force) back into him. Therefore it should be considered that it might play a role in the neija arts.


I-Mon,

I appreciate your response.
What I was aiming at was the interpretation of the phenomena one experiences. The phenomena can be very real, yet the interpretations can be way off. I'm actually very open to new ways of looking at things. That's the exciting part about science IMO. And practical experiences can lead to many new insights and help you to ask the right questions. But more often than not it seems, that people who have an exciting new idea can't let go of it in the light of contradicting facts. I know some scientists who sunk into insignificance because of it.

CD

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

RE: "You also implied that it doesn't possibly play a role in the neijia arts.". I don't need to imply that, nor do I need to limit it to any particular kind of martial art. The Golgi apparatus functions in such a way that it is inherently "marginalized" for any conscious use. Anyone claiming otherwise would have all of the onus of responsibility to provide evidence thereof, and it would not be an easy argument to make.

The movement you are describing in, "You can try this, by deliberatly letting your knees collapse and let the body catch itself.", has nothing to do with activating Golgi bodies, and is an entirely conscious activity. The body doesn't "catch itself" unless and until the righting reflex is engaged, and even then the actions taken look nothing like what you are describing. What you describe is the stomping step of neijia, most commonly seen in Xingyiquan practitioners. It is most definitely a plyometric type of action, and yes, it can translate into a surprising degree of extra kinetic energy if timed correctly with a strike, push, etc., especially if the root path is aligned correctly.

Still, though, this action has nothing to do with the Golgi apparatus, which is activated in response to momentary overstretching of the muscle fiber, a condition which in no way occurs in the stomping step. So, yes....there is something worth looking into there with regard to martial function, but it operates plyometrically and does not engage the Golgi bodies in the process.

[cdobe]

Chris,

first of all, you're confusing the Golgi apparatus, which is a cell organelle, with the Golgi tendon organ.
Second, you're constantly trying to falsely attribute to me, that the organ was under conscious control. It's not my point. Stop it!
And finally, the neurological component of plyometrics is the sensory response of the muscle spindles and the Golgi tendon organs !

CD

cdobe,

RE: "You also implied that it doesn't possibly play a role in the neijia arts.". I don't need to imply that, nor do I need to limit it to any particular kind of martial art. The Golgi apparatus functions in such a way that it is inherently "marginalized" for any conscious use. Anyone claiming otherwise would have all of the onus of responsibility to provide evidence thereof, and it would not be an easy argument to make.

The movement you are describing in, "You can try this, by deliberatly letting your knees collapse and let the body catch itself.", has nothing to do with activating Golgi bodies, and is an entirely conscious activity. The body doesn't "catch itself" unless and until the righting reflex is engaged, and even then the actions taken look nothing like what you are describing. What you describe is the stomping step of neijia, most commonly seen in Xingyiquan practitioners. It is most definitely a plyometric type of action, and yes, it can translate into a surprising degree of extra kinetic energy if timed correctly with a strike, push, etc., especially if the root path is aligned correctly.

Still, though, this action has nothing to do with the Golgi apparatus, which is activated in response to momentary overstretching of the muscle fiber, a condition which in no way occurs in the stomping step. So, yes....there is something worth looking into there with regard to martial function, but it operates plyometrically and does not engage the Golgi bodies in the process.

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

RE: "first of all, you're confusing the Golgi apparatus, which is a cell organelle, with the Golgi tendon organ.". I'm not confusing them at all. What kind of a dumbass do you think I am exactly? Besides, while we're on the topic, what exactly is your background in physiology. I'd like to know what your level of understanding is so I know at what level I can discuss it with you.

RE: "Second, you're constantly trying to falsely attribute to me, that the organ was under conscious control. It's not my point. Stop it!". Damn, man....now you're just coming unhinged. I'm "constantly" blah, blah, blah? That's just laughable given that the only time it's come up is when I stated, "I'm not sure what you may be agreeing or disagreeing with in regard to it. If you're saying that it plays a powerful role in muscle cell activation under specific circumstances, then I'd have to agree. If you're possibly saying that we can bring its activation under conscious control for use in martial arts, I can't agree with that. Perhaps you're saying something else entirely. If so, I am certainly not understanding what your point is with regard to that structure.".

That's pretty much as clear as it can be that I don't know what point you are trying to make, and that if your point was about it's being under conscious control, then I couldn't agree. That's a far cry from falsely attributing anything to you, nevermind doing so on any kind of "constant" basis. You simply hadn't made clear what your point even was, and I was forced to speculate. That is, btw, why I included the "if" 's in there....precisely so that it would be impossible to interpret my statements as falsely attributing anything to you.

RE: "And finally, the neurological component of plyometrics is the sensory response of the muscle spindles and the Golgi tendon organs !". I don't know which Google hit you're getting your physiology information from, but that simply isn't accurate. If you were a physiologist yourself, or even a someone with a sports medicine or PT background, you'd know that. Given that you're not only wrong, but you're willing to take a condescending, even hostile, tone with it, then it's hard to feel bad about exposing your ignorance in that way.

If you want to pretend to have a civil discussion about the actual topic with me, or with anyone else for that matter, here's a hint....you have to actually try to appear civil. In this case, your ridiculous reaction just belies your personal gripe with me yet again.