Disclosure of information on the net

haven't read every reply but here's my take. Whatever your views on the value of rank, in internet discussion it is only relevent in specific contexts.

For example, if you were discussing how you have evidence that someone has falsified their rank or their history, your rank is completely irrelevent. It does not address the discussion one way or another. While I may not have refused to answer, thus making it a big deal, I may well have pointed out that the question itself was at best a distraction, and maybe an intentional diversion.

For the most part I agree that rank doesn't have much of a role to play in internet discussion. People are judged on the merits of the arguments they put forward. It's only when people are appealing to experience that rank plays a part.

I've been posting on Aikiweb from time to time for a good few years - and I believe I've only ever mentioned my rank once. In that situation (a grappling vs aikido discussion) it was for a very specific reason- to show I had experience in both sides of the discussion, wheras some others seemed to have strong opinions having only experienced one side of the coin. The point being it was spcifically relevent to the discusssion.

As an aside I'm not sure I agree with "how long have you studied" as a replacement for "what rank are you". There's plenty of people that have studied "for 10 years" - which could mean 10 years dedicated daily practice, but could also mean on and off, once a week, a few months off here and there, never really progressing - but of course "I would have graded but there were political issues/I'm above such things/ didn't want to pay the fee" etc etc.

You got rank, right? It came from somewhere, was given by someone. The rank was meant to mark your relative position in relation to some other folks. That is what rank is, a relative marker. If rank were meant to be secret, your teacher wouldn't have needed to give out rank. If rank were some big secret people wouldn't discuss whether some rank or another was bogus.

Face it, rank is fundamentally public. You didn't need it to know how good you are and your teacher didn't need give it to know that either. You both know. So rank has no function other than for other people. Everybody at this point realizes that it has no fundamental meaning. If one knows a particular teacher, knows other people who have trained with him, then they might have some idea what a given rank might mean but probably not. You have it, just state it. What's the big deal? Do you think that your rank, as whatever Dan, puts you at a disadvantage in a discussion with someone with a 6th Dan? Then explain how being secretive helps that in any way. If you state your opinion and its a good one, folks will simply say, that guy knows a lot for a Shodan (or whatever). If your opinion is stupid no Dan rank can save you. Being secretive just distracts from the discussion and makes people think you have something to hide.

I believe that the last guy who posted quite a bit on Aikido Journal who wouldn't state his rank was Tennenhouse and he didn't turn out well at all. Better to be up front.

Me Rank:
YoshiOrge Black Level +1;
Str: +30;
Spd: +18;
Dex: +22;
Int: + 5; Exp: 5,600, next level up 6,400

There, full disclosure.

Boon The YoshiOrge (TM)

Xu Wenfung wrote: Me Rank: YoshiOrge Black Level +1; Str: +30; Spd: +18; Dex: +22; Int: + 5; Exp: 5,600, next level up 6,400 There, full disclosure. Boon The YoshiOrge (TM)

You've completely lost me with all that?

Xu Wenfung wrote: Me Rank: YoshiOrge Black Level +1; Str: +30; Spd: +18; Dex: +22; Int: + 5; Exp: 5,600, next level up 6,400 There, full disclosure. Boon The YoshiOrge (TM)

you rock man. Watchout for Bugbears and Gibberlings

Do you think that your rank, as whatever Dan, puts you at a disadvantage in a discussion with someone with a 6th Dan?

Valid point, but we've also had the opposite happen here where the fact that the person was a high rank was somehow seen as allowing them to post their meanderings "in an ever so humble manner" without either censure or any sort of peer review. I think at that time (after a brief flurry of the usual heart felt "more in sorrow than anger" swan songs) the consensus was that rank had no real place in internet discussions unless it was contributory to the point in question.

In my usual long-winded way, getting back to the original thread topic the rank of the person questioning the validity of someones grade wasn't in any way part of the original discussion. In fact I'd go further to say that the request for Dave's rank was merely a smokescreen and (if I was annoyed at the time) I'd probably tell them to stick it and find out themselves in a similar situation.

On the more general issue of "disclosing rank" I'd go along with normal good manners - if the request was reasonable with respect to the discussion, for example if I'd used my rank/experience to bolster my argument, asking for details would be sensible. If the request was out of the blue I'd take it as merely impolite and reply in kind.

For those wishing to know my rank - "I'm no better than I ought to be and certainly worse that I should be" should cover most of my sins of ineptitude.

OT: XU, shouldn't it be dwarfs and numbers greater than 2 that you should avoid?

Isaac Bettis wrote: you rock man. Watchout for Bugbears and Gibberlings

Thank you, Sir! Obviously some are more nimble minded than others.

Boon.

Ian Hurst wrote: .... the rank of the person questioning the validity of someones grade wasn't in any way part of the original discussion. In fact I'd go further to say that the request for Dave's rank was merely a smokescreen and (if I was annoyed at the time) I'd probably tell them to stick it and find out themselves in a similar situation.

I wasn't so much "annoyed" but reinforcing the point that my grade held no validity in the actual discussion, indeed the facts about the individual in question spoke for themselves (which one of two people two exception too). Indeed on the very same forum where this all occurred earlier this year I got, just yesterday, a PM from one of the individuals stating that in his opinion, my so called "high graded instructor" referring to Keith Hayward hadn't done me so well, given the fact that I was still a junior dan grade after almost 20 years. Just shows that people really are pre-occupied with the grades I have.

Just for clarification on this point;

Life is never as clear cut as it appears and, to stem any 'wonderings' people may have of their own.. Politics and ego played a great part in the first 10 years of my study, both of the only two instructors operating in my region at the time were egotistic and held-back many of their students from natural academic progression, I can only surmise this was because they themselves didn't want other yudansha around them.

I then began training with another instructor (John Andrews) which involved travelling 110 miles (Grimsby to Skegness round trip) twice a week and through this instructor I was introduced to my present organisation (UKA) I remained with that instructor until his work took him away from the area where, I continued to train back in my own home town and eventually within a dojo I jointly helped to establish under Keith Hayward Sensei. I have already discussed my present 'grade' with my instructor and was offered the opportunity to test this year whilst at summer school. I declined this opportunity because I didn't feel I was physically fit enough to do the examination justice, and my fitness issues are born from receiving treatment for a series of stomach ulcers which resulted from watching my mother die from a fairly lengthy cancer illness. Whilst Aikido has been a great source of strength for me, especially during my mother's illness, my priorities were not focused on attaining further yudansha certification.

Anyway sorry to have off-loaded that on you guys but, if people feel that disclosing grades adds credibility to opinions which are expressed in forums such as these, perhaps I should also be adding why I hold a junior grade after almost 20 years of training.

Kind regards as always

I understand your question, but my point is still the same. Whether your reader is a current student or a distant user, you publish information for them to consume. You already know your rank, but others don't.

Creditentials will always add ethos to the name. Who would you prefer to perform an operation, a medical doctor, or a BS graduate? Would you rather have a PhD or a BA? Would you rather a lawyer (JD) defend you or a philosophy major? There's a reason we work so dang hard to add initials after our names.

Do I think rank should add to credibility? Absolutely. Do I think a couple of bums that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag have black belts? Absolutely. Do I think those bums should influence the credibility of a ranking system? Absolutely not. Rank is designed to provide a general backround instantly, giving the consumer additional historical knowledge about the individual. It's not the systems's fault that people screwed it up. When I see, "MD," I instantly assume the individual has the training and knowledge to care for my body. From that historical background, I can make a more informed choise about the quality of care I can expect from that individual.

By admitting that rank is unimportant, you discredit the entire ranking system. There will always be poor representation of a credential. You can't let that negate the hard work and effort required to achieve such a goal as a black belt.

I think that aikido currently has a problem with ranking black belts that do not meet the standards that many of us would place on a black belt rank. I also think many aikidoka omit their training history to open doors of opportunity that would not necessarily be open otherwise. I think holding rank, testing, and publishing rank are important steps to maintaining a healthy rank system. We have all attended seminars and overheard, "that guy is a black belt?" or "that girl is a sandan?" The incredibility of the statement is the expectation of skill did not match the historical background of the individual.

Shouldn't we look to make credible black belts rather than make incredible statements? I belive we should, and that starts by supporting the ranking system.

But what does supporting the ranking system (all good points) have to do with using rank as a mark of credibility in a discussion on the web?

Best,
Ron (methinks nothing at all)

Jon Reading wrote: I understand your question, but my point is still the same. Whether your reader is a current student or a distant user, you publish information for them to consume. You already know your rank, but others don't.

so.. then.. by your reasoning, we should include in our signatures (for all to see at all times) our current grades because, for what you've just said to be true, our grade must be easily seen by anyone reading material we post.

Creditentials will always add ethos to the name. Who would you prefer to perform an operation, a medical doctor, or a BS graduate? Would you rather have a PhD or a BA? Would you rather a lawyer (JD) defend you or a philosophy major? There's a reason we work so dang hard to add initials after our names.

Really, that's an absolute then.. everyone holding a grade in aikido has earned it or worked damn hard for it .. Google "soke 10th dan" and see why your reasoning is flawed. A person holding a martial arts grade which may well have been bought or issued from [god only knows where] cannot be compared to someone who has gained a PhD from a recognised educational issuing authority.

When I see, "MD," I instantly assume the individual has the training and knowledge to care for my body. From that historical background, I can make a more informed choise about the quality of care I can expect from that individual.

I guess then that every I see "Soke 10th dan" written at the end of a person's name I should assume they've earned the title and rank.

By admitting that rank is unimportant, you discredit the entire ranking system. There will always be poor representation of a credential. You can't let that negate the hard work and effort required to achieve such a goal as a black belt.

Feel free to illustrate where I've either said or intimated as much. Frankly you're accusing me of discrediting something which I actually BELIEVE in.

I think that aikido currently has a problem with ranking black belts that do not meet the standards that many of us would place on a black belt rank.

If that is indeed the case, how in god's name can you say that disclosing one's grade in internet discussions such as this adds credibility ?

Jon, forgive me but, without re-reading the entire thread, have you told me what your grade is ? Not that I'm actually interested but; you're expressing an opinion about diclosure of grade in terms of credibility however, where in your last post for instance did you quantify your credibility to me with the number of grades you hold ?


Kind regards as always

I guess the point I see against posting rank is this.

"Rank is meaningless so posting it only hurts my position."

"There is no reason to qualify anything I might say, because there is no way possible to determine if I have any experiance in what I am talking about"

That is really the core issue. We assume that if someone is well spoken they know there stuff. Really however, we only assume they know there stuff if they are saying things we agree with the majority of the time. If you are attempting to bring into question someone elses trainning (as the parent thread that created this thread was doing) you should expect the same thing to be done to you. If you are attempting to educate someone, you should expect your credentals brought into the conversation when someone doesn't agree with you. Even if you think rank is worthless, even if it is scamed by Soke's, you still have to admit it is a credental. As a credental, I don't see why it should be excluded. It can't hurt your argument, it can only help your argument. The people who will look down on your rank would look down on you if you never posted it. All hiding a silly little fact like rank does is create questions on what you have to hide.

Look at it this way. Nohthing you can say or do can prove to me any of you guys know anything. Seriously, lets go though the list of things you can post as credentals.

"I have trained for X number of years." - Have you learned anything, are you physically incapable of doing aikido? Are you a bad student? Time is meaningless.
"I trained under X instructor." - Again, your instructor could be great, he could suck, I dont know. Even if I did know you could be a bad student and have no skill.
"I have a 5th dan." - Ok, so what, again maybe you bought your way to rank, or worked your way up the friends list.
"*you post conversation that sounds insightful*" - Maybe you are toting the party line. Maybe you just tell us what we want to here. Just because you are well spoke means nothing about your aikido ablilty. How do we even know you believe what you are saying? How do we know you even train at all? Maybe you are a larper who makes up how you train just to entertain yourself at work.
"* you post video of your skills *" - Is that even you? How do we know it is you? How do we know you are really doing those techniques and you dont just have a great uke making you look good. How do we know you have proper form? Is that arm really unbendable or is your uke just pretending to be locked out?

As you can see NOTHING you can tell us can help us establish your level of skill. However, we do have some faith and gernalizations that we can use to help us get a handle on your experiance. For example. All of these examples are under a reputable org. IF the org is not reputable, then again rank tells us even less.

If you trained for 1 year and were 5th kyu - It is safe to say you might not have a good insight into aikido techniques, but you are learning and are developing your own ideas.
If you trained for 20 years and are still 3rd kyu - It is safe to say you either don't rank for a personal reason, or you have some kind of inablity to develop the skill you need to rank. Perhaps you 'trained' for 20 years 1 night a week for a half hour.
If you trained for 20 years with high dan rank - It is safe to say you play politics a little to get where you are, Have good/great aikido skills, and probably make a good teacher.
If you trained for 20 years with low dan rank - It's safe to say you don't like politcs. You belive shodan is the goal in martial arts training and that rank after that is mostly politics, and you can be just as insightful and just as good of a teacher.
If you have a 10th dan and are not affiliated with a major org - Its safe to say 9 out of 10 times you are a ego driven man who may have any degree of aikido skill, but his ego forces him to be only the best. This could range from a person with a 3rd -4th dan skill level in aikido to an absolute fraud. Of course we can't rule out that rare genius that really is doing something new. I mean O'Sensei did it.

It is not definitive, but it can give us an IDEA. Which is better then nothing. Again, it can't hurt your argument. So if someone asks, just give it to them. It will either shut them up and let the conversation progress, or it will show you that they are not worth talking too.

I almost never ask for rank or proof of experiance. But there are places where I would ask. For me, I tipically ask to expose frauds.

Again, you dont need to tell people your grade, but there is no reason to keep it a secret when someone asks. I have yet to hear a single good argument on why you should go out of your way to not answer the question.

I'm going to suggest that everyone participating in this discussion go back and re-read Sensei Ledyard's comments. Then read them again. After that, read them one more time.

Michael Riehle wrote: I'm going to suggest that everyone participating in this discussion go back and re-read Sensei Ledyard's comments. Then read them again. After that, read them one more time.

Done.
I'm even going to try to make it to his seminar in Redlands next weekend.
Regarding posting rank, I think everyone should include it in their avatar like me.
Actually, I don't take too much of this stuff I read in these forums seriously. In my opinion, real aikido is on the mat. Everything else is just for fun.

Logical, objective arguments should be the criteria. There are many people that find validation in what this or that sensei said or what rank the particular person has. It is as if the heavens only hold the answer and rank makes you some deity and thus justifies your reasoning. Way too much emphasis is placed on rank. Certainly, in the dojo we respect it, as we must. These are the rules. Your opinion off the tatami is your opinion no matter whom you are arguing with.

I'm going to suggest that everyone participating in this discussion go back and re-read Sensei Ledyard's comments. Then read them again. After that, read them one more time.

And this post is an excellent example in why ignoring rank on a internet web-forum can help rather than hinder discussion...

1. He has a name (and surely George isn't too bad a name after all) and just to be pedantic, please put the sensei in its proper position when using it as an honorific.

2. I currently do not know anything more about your views on the thread other than you think George's post is wonderful. Why do you agree with him? What in your own view supports both Georges and your own view on this subject, do you have any examples you'd like to share?

A blanket statement of support made in a manner where the rank of the person being supported is highlighted (either implicitly or explicitly) adds very little and often comes across as a mere "look, sensei said so". It's akin to using a quote or web-link with no supporting argument or viewpoint.

Another personal view: It's incredibly pompous to refer to yourself as 'sensei' on a forum like this. (I know George Ladyard didn't do this, but plenty have). There's far too much use of the honorific 'sensei' in aikido anyway. I think it's quite ridiculous and especially on some websites where there seems to be page after page of 'sensies', seemingly anybody from shodan upwards. I've even seen a third kyu listed as an instructor and referred to as Mr X sempai!

Before anybody asks, I've been training ten years and I'm a shodan. If anyone at the very traditional dojo where I train referred to the instructor (a yondan) as 'sensei' he'd probably think they'd taken leave of their senses.

Of course this is a slightly different debate however, when I was training at Yamada Sensei's dojo in New York, I was told that regardless of whom might be teaching - shidoin or fuku-shidoin, there was only one sensei within that dojo; either Yamada Y. or Sugano S. Whichever was teaching at the time.

Dave Humm wrote: Of course this is a slightly different debate however, when I was training at Yamada Sensei's dojo in New York, I was told that regardless of whom might be teaching - shidoin or fuku-shidoin, there was only one sensei within that dojo; either Yamada Y. or Sugano S. Whichever was teaching at the time.

Dave,

I think you are skating on thin ice here. Sensei is simply a title, given in Japan to doctors, politicians, gangsters and martial arts instructors. The title indicates precisely nothing about the technical expertise, bona fides, or morals of the holder: only that he/she has 'experience', commensurate with someone who has 'lived before'.

Yamada Sensei gave me my shodan at a memorable training course held in the West Midlands. The other recipients were Matthew Holland and Ken Marsden. They are not in the UKA, but I think you might know them. Of course, he is a sensei, but in Japan he would be 'Dojo-Cho'.

This is one area where Japanese names have been exported, but the culture and usage relevant to the correct use of the name has not been exported.

Best wishes,

Grade should not be a relevant matter in a forum like this, maybe if asked you could give it; but shouldn't be the number 1 factor to somebodies ability to add a post, and for people to really take it in. I mean we don't always believe what we read, so why would a 5th Dan make a difference in that area. If you can understand what I am saying, it sounds right in my head anyway.
If somebody is teaching me, whether it is my own Sensei or it is Kanetsuka Sensei; I still refer to them as Sensei. I understand the term Sensei as being teacher, which to me is anyone who is teaching me at that given time. When I am at courses given by visiting Senseis, my own instructor is simply known as Don, and not as Sensei; since he isn't directly teaching me at the time.
Wayne

There's a big difference between calling the person who happens to be teaching 'sensei' on the mat and awarding the title to all and sundry to use and abuse as they see fit.

I don't think that 'sensei' is added to the individual names in the list of instructors at the Aikikai Hombu dojo-even though some of them are extremely senior in rank. I'm also told that at the old Iwama dojo there were only three 'sensei's', Saito the elder, his son and Nemoto-who was formally given that title one evening before practice. The impression I get is that the general use of 'sensei' in its honorific form is considered to be more than a little old fashioned by the younger generation of instructors in Japan.

Fast forward to, say, the Iwama ryu GB website where I have been thinking of offering a prize to anyone who can count the total number of 'senseis' mentioned. (Clue; there are a hell of a lot...). Or the two Iwama Ryu seventh dans in Europe who continually refer to themselves as 'shihan'. Maybe there's nothing wrong in that, but if Saito the elder was happy with a simple 'sensei' then it does make you wonder about the whole thing.

(I'm not trying to pick on iwama Ryu GB by the way, their website just struck me as being particularly over the top in this respect)

Ian Hurst wrote: And this post is an excellent example in why ignoring rank on a internet web-forum can help rather than hinder discussion...

Well, that is certainly true if you are placing more weight on the rank than it deserves.

Okay, one more time: I mostly don't care what your rank is. But if someone asks, not answering the question appears evasive and gives the impression that you see rank as being of overriding importance.

Rank is, by definition, a public thing. A relative yardstick.

If you refuse to reveal your rank, it appears you have something to hide. Honestly, the yonkyu who is upfront about his rank and training is a lot more credible - to me - than the yondan who tries to evade the question.

Ian Hurst wrote: 1. He has a name (and surely George isn't too bad a name after all) and just to be pedantic, please put the sensei in its proper position when using it as an honorific.

English: Title comes first.

Japanese: Title comes last.

Not interested in the argument, really. But here's a thought for you:

My last name is pronounced "real", even though it's spelled "Riehle". On the mat, my students call me Sensei Riehle. Off th mat, most of the adults call my "Michael" (the kids just call me Sensei, and that's fine with me).

Turn it around the Japanese way. It could certainly be good for a laugh. Except I've heard the joke and variations on it a couple too many times.

Ian Hurst wrote: 2. I currently do not know anything more about your views on the thread other than you think George's post is wonderful. Why do you agree with him? What in your own view supports both Georges and your own view on this subject, do you have any examples you'd like to share?

Clearly, you've not read the rest of the thread. I've only stated my views repeatedly.

But okay, one more time:

Not volunteering your rank means nothing to me. Not answering the question when you are asked appears evasive and is more damaging to your credibility than whatever your rank happens to be. This is true even if the person asking doesn't have a particularly good reason for asking.

Ian Hurst wrote: A blanket statement of support made in a manner where the rank of the person being supported is highlighted (either implicitly or explicitly) adds very little and often comes across as a mere "look, sensei said so". It's akin to using a quote or web-link with no supporting argument or viewpoint.

Okay George Ledyard happens to teach. I happen to know this. I also teach. So, as a professional courtesy I refer to him as "Sensei Ledyard". Maybe it should have been "Ledyard Sensei". Still, the emphasis on rank was something you read into my comments. I would do the same for anyone I happen to know is a teacher as a matter of course.

Or maybe I should have just called him "That Ledyard Guy". I suspect it wouldn't matter all that much to him, but it matters to me.

FWIW: While I feel compelled to extend the courtesy, I would not insist on it from others. I would appreciate it when extended, but never presume to insist upon it.

AND: I have to ask, did you actually read his post? My endorsement had a great deal to do with what he said and very little to do with who he is (although, I will admit, I tend to respect his opinions in general).

MOREOVER: There are times when "assuming" a title is more than appropriate. Titles are meant to communicate. In the case of "Sensei", it's meant to communicate that this person is teaching or is a teacher. Shoving that in someone's face is out of line. But refusing to accept the title (and use it when appropriate!) is as presumptious as declaring yourself "Super Grand Soke of All Soke's in Foo Bar Ryu Aikido".

Clearly, you've not read the rest of the thread. I've only stated my views repeatedly

You're correct, I was overly harsh here - using a single response from you without regard to your other posts was impolite, for that you have my apologies. However, I would still suggest you quote then expand, even when you've done so before as I personally find "read this it states my view" very annoying and bordering on patronizing - blame the academic in me for hating to run down references.

The rest of my rant was more in keeping with Ron's rather succinct point

But what does supporting the ranking system (all good points) have to do with using rank as a mark of credibility in a discussion on the web?

which ties in nicely with your views on professional courtesy. Now if this was a different type of site which dealt with, say official missives and communication of a single organization etc. I would expect such honorifics to be used as a matter of course.

However, in a free wheeling, hopefully open discussion of aikido and it's relative merits/demerits I firmly believe that the use of rank hinders discussion rather than aids it. Even when it is used as a mark of common respect it can easily engender sacred cows who no-one questions or, more problematically, reduces a senior practitioners input because it removes them from the common herd and frustrates their ability to get into a nice down and dirty e-slug fest.

A quick way to see this is to find some forums where moderators always post as moderators and compare with others where their identity as a moderators is separate to their posting identity - very rarely will rank be disputed (I always hope Jun has a dummy account so he can play in aikiweb properly).

Anyway - only my take on this, no doubt we'll continue to differ.

PS - yes, I did read it and agreed with it in part

My main point is providing additional information about yourself helps consumers make better informed decisions about you: your posts, your comments, your training methods. This is true for your dojo website, aikiweb, anywhere you participate in publishing information that will be consumed. I checked my profile here and noticed that while my dojo, website and some general information is published for any member to review, my rank is not a field in my profile. For those of you wondering, I am a nidan. I edited my profile and within a few minutes altered my biography.

I often view profiles of posters as a reference when I read their posts. Some posters have gained respect from me based on their posts and profile information, some posters have lost respect from me for the same reasons. If historical information is available I will consume it: websites, organizational newlsetters, personal introduction. All of these tools help me to create a reference by which to evaluate a person.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: Dave, I think you are skating on thin ice here. Sensei is simply a title, given in Japan to doctors, politicians, gangsters and martial arts instructors. The title indicates precisely nothing about the technical expertise, bona fides, or morals of the holder: only that he/she has 'experience', commensurate with someone who has 'lived before'. Yamada Sensei gave me my shodan at a memorable training course held in the West Midlands. The other recipients were Matthew Holland and Ken Marsden. They are not in the UKA, but I think you might know them. Of course, he is a sensei, but in Japan he would be 'Dojo-Cho'. This is one area where Japanese names have been exported, but the culture and usage relevant to the correct use of the name has not been exported. Best wishes,

Hi Peter,

Yes I know both Ken Marsden having trained at his dojo in Leeds several times, I do know of Mathew Holland, He was in Scotland if my memory is correct ? I've taken his classes at Chester Seminars with the BAF.

With regards to my comments earlier, I was merely repeating what I was told by a NYA student. I was training with one of their sandan and I referred to him as "Sensei" he was very quick to point out that .... (see my last statements) I do of course understand the meaning of the term Sensei and how it so often misused because it is equally misunderstood.

Kind regards as always