Jun Akiyama wrote:
Sorry for the mix-up. I was more intending it to be the former, but the latter is an interesting interpretation, too!
Methinks, cynically, Jun, it doesn't even matter. Unless I miss my guess, your intention with these often unfocused, shotgun questions is to stir thought and discussion. A finely-honed question might answer itself.
At the end of Blink!, a book by Malcom Caldwell on how we make decisions, he relates how a world-class symphony held blind auditions for the first time for a wind instrument position. They'd never hired a woman for that part before because everyone KNOWS that women and physically incapable of bearing up under the stress of such a demanding instrument. You've already guessed the result--by unanimous consent, they chose a woman, much to their own astonishment. All these generations, some of the finest trained ears ever to appear on earth were overruled by vulgar preconceptions.
How much of our reasoning is much different? Some SHIHAN's offhanded comment become scripture and we interpret results according to that. Received wisdom is that you learn to throw by...falling?! Arguments could be made very well for learning to throw better by concentrating on...throwing! Hark! A revelation!
Why do we learn to throw by falling? Do we learn to play chess by cleaning tables?! (Yes, I have read Ledyard's very compelling remarks on the subject; I make the argument as Devil's Advocate.)
So many of our conclusions are based not on evidence but on expectations. Conventional wisdom here is that we learn to be better NAGEs by being regular UKEs.