Slashdot Mirror
You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years
jmcbain tips a fascinating interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do). The question was, how much training would it take for a normal person to become Batman? The professor says: "You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess... In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years." The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death — or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."
and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.
10 to 12 years for the physical training, but Batman was more than physical ability. He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.
Not to mention that there's a great deal of viral marketing in it now -- vis a vis this "article"
That's BS. The Adam West Batman lost and got captured tons of times. That's when his utility belt's contents really got interesting!
Well, you do know that their job is to sell ads and subscriptions, not educate readers, right??
Staying on top of his game is all part of his psychosis. If you hadn't noticed, he's a bit of a whackjob himself.
meh
pop science is important. it is a gateway to serious science for many youngsters and average joes
you are dismayed it does not feature serious science
ok, so go read something else
why the hate for a magazine of pop science?
it serves a valuable function. are you angry that some obscure technical journal is not popular? so why are you angry that a piece of pop science is doing what a piece of pop science must do?
if it is serious science, it is relegated to obscurity, as a rule. because it needs to be digested for the masses, where anything popular takes place
why don't you understand this?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, the character has an almost super-human physique. And yes, he's got a big pile 'o cash that helps him afford the toys and tools he uses during his "night job". But there's more to it.
Wayne can out-think any of his opponents. His schtick is that he's 5-10 steps ahead of anyone. If he gets into a fight, he's already out-thought the opponent and knows exactly how the fight's going to end.
That's harder to teach. You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.
Jason Van Patten
When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.
Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.
It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson, Zetaman, Captain Prospect or some other "real life superhero"
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Even the mostly testosterone filled martial arts class has more of a chance of containing an actual attractive female than training alone at home with just those comics for company.
-mkb
I think what I liked most about Batman Begins is that it gave a reasonable explanation as to why Bruce Wayne would dress up like a bat. As much as Batman is a skilled fighter, he is also good at using psychological warfare on his opponents. Consider that during the fight at the docks, he had been playing enough mind games on the crooks that they were off balanced when he attacked them in a large group.
Now granted in real life most people would piss their pants laughing at a guy dressed up like a giant bat (also a viable attack strategy) but the idea is that batman is such a terrifying character that you are thrown off and are easier to take down.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
That just takes a spray of acid to the face or a dunk in a chemical vat. No training time whatsoever.
On another note, I get peeved by everyone ignoring Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" moniker and generally accepted reputation as one of DC Universe's smartest humans. Everyone focuses on Batman's physical skills where, in "reality", having keen observational skills and an intellect allowing superior strategems probably alleviates a lot of the need for ultimate physical skills.
Batman's really only cool because of his enemies.
Batman vs the purse snatcher or Batman vs the social welfare fraudster etc, would get pretty boring after about a week.
Clearly "You, Too, Could Be The Joker In 10 To 12 Years" is required , or maybe just some freaky chemistry.
Then again, an "if you build it, they will come" universal harmony thing might apply...
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
"And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat."
That's why we make firearms. All that unarmed combat bullshit is entertaining, but if you want to stop an opponent from functioning, kill him.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.
Looking at /. from even 5 years ago, let alone 10, shows you how lame it has become. It used to be about news for nerds and stuff that matters, now it is just about wannabe nerds whining about Popular Science. The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.
Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
Let's see some hands: How many people have been in a street fight? Against one person? Against two?
When I was young, I was sort of a bad ass. I was a "baby huey" sort of kid. Without working out, I was 6' 210lbs in high school. 32 inch waste 46 inch jacket. I was pretty strong. When I started working out, for football, I started bench press at 210lbs, my weight.
I hung out in Dorchester and South Boston and got in a lot of fights. 1:1 I could hold my own against almost anyone, even the kids who took karate. 2:1, I would usually get my ass kicked unless I could get rid of the first guy quickly. 3:1, no f-ning way you're getting out without serious bruises or broken bones.
Batman is a myth. It can't happen. Kung Foo movies are a joke. Guns are popular because you *can* take on a bunch of people at once. Hand to hand, no matter how big and strong you are, two or three guys are stronger than you.
It would add to the conversation if he included pictures
Bottles.
I've made many a greasy anime nerd scoff in disbelief before, so perhaps, for public health concerns, as well as the general welfare, its best that I don't.
What about the expert skills in chemistry? Forensics? Psychology? Research? His business skills? Batman is also a consumate detective, so given his expert skill in these areas how long would it take to get those levels of ability?
You would think a Scientific magazine might also be interested in the mental aspect?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
One of the best lessons I learned in martial arts is there are two kinds of fights, those you fight dirty and those you lose.
Shouldn't take long, just go in to politics.
10 attackers is quite a few, and is very difficult, but not at all impossible if you're well trained and well prepared.
If you honestly believe everything you wrote in that post, then I can't help but think that you've trained some sort of martial art or self-defence class that teaches basic tactics for dealing with multiple opponents, but never really tried it in a free-for-all, full-contact, anything-goes experiment. I promise you, it's an experiment you'll only ever need to do once, because the result is absolutely guaranteed.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
goth chicks... And the original copy of her birth certificate... with out that, she's dead, right?
Making her a better goth?
On a more serious note, does any one care? I'm very happy your in a (slightly) happy relationship, but it doesn't matter, a lot of other people are as well. If you can't be happy without telling others, then you probably aren't happy.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I think you have hit on a very important point there, perhaps unintentionally. You wrote:
When you are starting to learn something, does it really matter if you are working with the best of the best, or just with someone who knows the basics and can get you started without major mistakes?
It has been my experience that the difference between the "master" teachers and the "journeymen" is precisely that the masters will teach you the right thing, while the journeymen will teach you something that superficially looks, sounds or appears similar, but gets the effect in the wrong way (in the sense that you will need a different approach to improve further).
This is not to say that journeymen cannot be useful teachers. They have greater experience than the student, and perhaps can pass on the wisdom that multiple teachers of their own have shared with them. Usually this will help the student much more than harm them, and a student can learn a lot from such a teacher, particularly if they have access to multiple teachers so they can spot the inconsistencies that might betray a misunderstanding on the part of any one teacher.
However, the master has moved beyond this, combining the guidance of his teachers with his own experience of both practising and teaching the subject, and thus developing his own personal insights. Where the journeyman mostly repeats advice based on the understanding of others, the master understands the subject deeply himself and can therefore create advice on demand in each specific situation.
This makes a significant difference in at least two circumstances. One is where the journeyman teacher has never themselves progressed beyond a certain level of understanding, and they are teaching a way of doing something that can only get their students to the same level, where the master's approach would achieve the same effect at the same level of development but also allow for further growth. Thus the student picks up a bad habit, which must be unlearned and replaced with the better version before they can make further progress.
The other big difference is in a field where people must adapt. For example, if I were coaching a short, stocky, strong Batman, I would teach him very different fighting techniques to those I would teach to a tall, fast, agile Batman, to take advantage of his attributes. A journeyman teacher who is short, stocky and strong and has received advice from teachers that play to those strengths might not have good advice available to pass on to the tall, fast, agile student. The master, in contrast, has developed experience beyond their own learning and practice of the skill, studying alternative perspectives and forming a more rounded view of the subject, and so can customise their advice based on the specific needs of each student. Again, much of the advice during the first years of study would probably overlap, but the master will identify the differences immediately and again prevent the need for the student to go back and make adjustments later.
This is just IME, and YMMV. That, after all, is the point. Whether it is worth paying the greater costs of going to a master teacher from the start (not just in terms of money, but also travel time if there is no-one that good who lives near you, etc.) is debatable, because of course much of the subtlety of their understanding really is wasted on a beginner at first. However, other things being equal and money being no object since we're talking about Batman, there are definitely advantages to avoiding the journeyman teacher and learning from the master.
(Incidentally, I personally find the study of how different people learn, the stages of development a student goes through as they learn a new skill, and how best a teacher can help them, to be a fascinating area. There is a lot of interesting research about it, which you might like to explore if you're interested and haven't seen it already.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You're going to need one heck of a weapon to take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you, though.
This is my BOOMSTICK
Don't forget to factor in human nature. At most, you'll only need to take down 2-3 before they get close enough to grab you.
By rigorous he means that they weren't afraid of having articles published by actual scientists, discussing their own field. They had rather technical stories on genetics, quantum theory, and cosmology, where the authors were actually writing about their discoveries, and doing so in such a manner as to not talk down to their readers.
Think of it as more than for laymen, but less than reading Nature, it was a good bridge for people who are not completely ignorant (used not as a value judgment but as a quantifier of knowledge) to know more about various fields. I think that is what the parent means by "rigorous", not that the other magazines lie, or have bad reporting, but lack the depth of SciAm.
Yes, it is a pop science magazine, but it always aimed towards a more informed, or sophisticated, audience.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
But basically it said that with 10,000 hours of training you can go from zero to a world class practitioner in *any* field you choose.
That's a load of crap unless you have a VERY low standard for "world class".
Athletics is an easy example but it applies equally to mental pursuits. I don't care how many hours of training you or I have, odds are you don't have the cardiovascular system to be a top endurance athlete. You are either born with it or you aren't and no amount of training will give it to you if you aren't. Likewise, you either have the muscle composition or don't to be a world class sprinter. Most sports tend to favor a particular physique - you either have it or you don't. Someone the size of an NFL linebacker is never going to win the Tour De France. There is of course an element of training but to get to the top level the right genetic component has to be there too.
There is a wide gulf between being competent and being world class. Very few people have the intellectual horsepower to be even close to the level of a Nobel prize winner or Olympic athlete. Certainly anyone can become more proficient. But world class? Pretty much by definition half the people are below average.
The trick behind multiple attackers is moving around enough so that they eventually line up and come at you one or two at a time.
Yeah I had my martial arts instructors tell me that too. Problem is that realistically you'll never be on favorable terrain and you aren't good enough to put your opponents down quickly or avoid entanglement. The human body can take a lot of abuse and odd are you'll get tied up with one opponent long enough for the others to get to you.
You *might* escape but that's the best you can hope for. Pretty much you have to hope the exit is close and you can get somewhere safe quickly. I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself but recognize that the odds are heavily against you.
Disclosure: I've been a martial arts student for about 20 years. I'm not any sort of exceptional talent but I do have enough experience (including real world) to understand what is possible. Multiple opponent situations are VERY difficult even if you are better armed and much better trained than those you are facing.
There is also a big difference between knowing a subject and knowing how to teach it.
Sometimes, being an expert in your field helps to teach it better. Sometimes, though, you've forgotten what it was like not to know the basics. Many of us here on Slashdot can figure out instantly that if 2x+3=11, then x=4. Some will go through a bit of a process involving subtraction and division. But if we had to explain it to others, how many of the experts will remember to explain why you can subtract 3 from both sides, or that x stands for a number, 2x means two times whatever x stands for, and that multiplication is commutative?
Or have the patience to realize that you've just introduced half a dozen important concepts here and no beginner is going to remember them all immediately...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Think that might be an under-estimate. Even beyond the effects of raw ability...
50 * 40 = ~2,000 hours a year at a 9-5 job.
So, if 10,000 hours is correct than 5 years of 9-5 work will make you world class in anything.
Scientists spend longer in grad school. Professional athletes train much longer than that. World class musicians start training as children and don't reach their peak until their 30s.
Not to even mention novelists, who take decades to reach their peak.