Both of them stated that they were the "ultimate" and most necessary for anybody that needed to learn self defense. They stated that the reader would learn the nitty gritty that was necsessary for self defense.
This article isn't a review of those books, but what triggered me was the both books only listed a lot of things the writer meant to be important, like:
- Remember to not be were violence can start
- Dont let people in close to you
- Read people
Even though the statements are sound, there was nothing on "how to..." do it. And there wasn't any integration between the statements.
Looking at any conflict, remembering a list of things to help you through the conflict isn't going to help. And the faster the conflict escalates with corresponding risks, you need to have your "tools" in place, because you can't live with the consequence not doing so.
You could take the list and go out and shop around and fine places/teachers that would teach you, but the books didn't state anything about the success criteria for those areas, and how you should connect them, or your just going to get X number of teachers teaching you a lot of things that have to work together, that each teacher can't or won't be able to get to work together.
So when these books talk about "ultimate" or "The only thing you have to learn", I believe there doing more harm than good. If they stated that they were a list of references fine, but that does sound boring, so I understand that they call it for something it isn't.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar