Is it possible to teach responsibility and understanding to kids?

Question

It seems many of those that teach have no problem teaching children.  I'm not interested in extenuating factors such as financial hardship and the need for kids to keep a school afloat.  It doesn't matter if it is an extremely watered down version and therefore "kid safe"  The question is as stated, do any of the people teaching actually believe you are teaching responsibility AND understanding?

Let's suppose for a second that all of the major arts, with founders of some repute, are being taught as the founder would have wished them to be.  Most teachers that claim to understand self defense will proclaim that the art they teach contains lethal techniques.  Using them successfully will maim or kill.

As a teacher of the art, you have been promoted to that level because it was believed you had the responsibility, and understanding to pass along the art in its entirety, with integrity.  If one understands responsibility, really understands it, as well as integrity, and understanding itself, they could not possibly teach children not of their own blood.  There is too much evidence that children cannot grasp a complete understanding of responsibility, therefore they cannot understand that martial does not mean beat up, lethal does not mean hurt badly, they simply cannot understand the value of being alive, or taking a life.

In some cases, a 17 yo can enlist in the army, but generally in the USA, one must be 18.  The reason being they are not mature enough to handle to responsibilities a soldier is faced with.  Sometimes they are in charge of very expensive equipment, in Vietnam, a 19 or 20 yo might have found them self in charge due to the CO being dead.  In war, a soldier is supposed to know when killing is justified, and when it is slaughter, such as mowing down a village in anger.

We don't let anyone under 18 vote, part of the reason I am sure goes to the days when it was easy to buy votes.  Theoretically, an "adult" will vote as they believe, and has the maturity to do so.

We don't allow minors, despite being of "adult age", to drink, one must be 21.  Why?  The age was once 18, it changed, largely due to abuse, and that abuse leading to more deaths within the age group than believed would happen without booze.  Whether the age is 18 or 21, most of us had parents that taught us not to drink, and implored us not to do so stupidly, yet very few can say they never broke down as a minor, broke the law, broke their parents rules, and at least tried it.  The same holds true for "recreational" drugs.  All through school the dangers of booze, drugs and smoking are emphasized, yet use in all three continues.

Back in the 80's there were constant promotions about babies having babies, teen girls getting pregnant from ages 14-17.  Sex education was a part of all schools, abstinance taught as the responsible thing, birth control taught as an intelligent thing, all students affirming they "understood", yet nothing changes.  In the late 90's there were groups of girls trying to get pregnant, it was an "in" thing to do.

Love, booze, drugs, smoking, these are things we teach as a society, and as parents that need to be understood and handled responsibly.  Every kid says they get it, and will act accordingly.  Yet hundreds of millions of parents, along with edcation, have failed to impart the true meaning of responsibility, due to children being too immature to understand.

How can anyone teaching 4 yo's to choke claim they understand these things when life has shown us children cannot understand them.  Would you rather have to go to a police station to bail out a drunk teen, or a teen that has killed someone?  Teaching ones own kids is one thing, but anyone that honestly believes they can teach a teen responsibility (someone elses kid) when their is evidence we can't teach our own, how can it be taught to a 4 yo?  The martial arts are for surviving, not bully proofing someone that writes letters to Santa.

Mild Max · Accepted Answer

Is it possible to teach kids those things? No.
It is possible for them to learn it for themselves and it's also possible for you to put them in situations to improve the chances of them learning it for themselves.
The more sheltered a kid is the less chances they have to consider things like 'concequences'.

Bogeyman61 · Answer

Children are like any other person, some will get the lesson and some will not. The reason Old World Martial Arts had very few children as "black belts" was because they didn't use belt rankings, it wasn't because children weren't being trained. Martial Arts was a way of life, and a way of preserving life. All instructors would evaluate the potential student and decide whether they thought that person was ready (worthy) to learn the Martial Way. It was not like it is today where most (most) instructors will accept anyone as a student because they have bills to pay. 
In the course of teaching Martial Arts the concept of training to be proficient at the level of understanding of the student has been pushed aside in the effort to appear successful as a school/instructor. There was once a standard that was unwritten that regulated the level of training children received to that which was appropriate for their age and mental maturity. Instructors with integrity still subscribe to these standards and balance their instruction of younger students regarding critical and lethal techniques. The need to maintain student levels in cultures that do not understand The Martial Way (example: the U.S.) has lead to the "McDojo" syndrome because parents have an unrealistic expectation of what it takes to truly advance in a Martial System. Because of the surrealistic condition that affects our culture and infects people with the "me first" perspective, they can not accept the idea that promotion is supposed to be based on performance and not just "time in". They can not deal with the idea that their child might not get his next rank because his performance was not of a high enough quality. It permeates almost every aspect of their lives.
Like I said, some will get it and some won't. It is the Instructors responsibility to control the availability of information based on their comprehensive ability.

Edit:____________________________________________
I just want to point out that I have been informed that maybe my point wasn't clear enough based on the post I made so I'd like to clarify.
I do believe it is possible to teach children to understand the differences in threat levels, such as the difference in what is acceptable to use against a bully and what is acceptable against a would be abductor. In the first instance a lesser degree of force should be sufficient to dissuade a bully than an abductor. But, if the child is not taught what is necessary to prevent their abduction then if it becomes an issue they will not be able to stop it from happening. So there IS purpose to teaching children the more "critical" techniques that may be needed in the real world "street" application, as well as defining the differences of the threat levels that make them necessary.
It is the same principal as understanding what it takes to take a life. If one is not taught what is required to kill, the applications that will result in death, then a person does not understand when to stop in order not to kill. More people are killed in fights accidentally than with intent, because the people involved did not understand that what they were about to do could actually lead to the other persons death.
And it is easy to teach a child responsibility, it is called "consequence of choice". If you are a decent parent/teacher it is not difficult to instill in a child the understanding of consequences to choices that are made. It's what adults are supposed to do for children every day of their lives so they can make better choices.
Is it irresponsible to teach a 4 yr. old a "Rear Naked" choke, or a "Guillotine" choke? NO. Is it irresponsible to teach then those things without teaching them when it is and when it is not acceptable to use them? YES.
But as I said earlier, it is a case by case issue. Not all children can be taught the same things at the same age, but that goes for adults as well. I have seen many "adults right here on this board that don't genuinely understand the issues presented. Even the ones they present themselves.

Georgie · Answer

Kids can learn non-very dangerous methods of self-defense. Self-defense does not have to be only about very-dangerous methods.

Now....differences in culture that may not be understood but to give anyone reading this a clue.....where I grew up, we were moderately drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes from the age of  12-13. At around the same age we were starting going out at nights..When I was sixteen I was going out everynight until a moderate hour except fridays and saturdays. There I was going out until 3-4 o clock in the morning. I had more fights as a teenager than I can count, I got barely hit, and now I am one of the nicest and more secure people that you may meet..At the age of 18th I was guarding a cease fire zone in the army.Nothing works that well by strictness. Neither by obeying too much any type of laws and rules and try to impose them. It all comes through natural things. Any law that is trying to destroy a healthy nature of things and puts people in a cage until their 21 should be banned...How can someone loose 21 years with out doing things that should be naturally doing at each age and then expect to be healthy psychologically.?

No kid of mine would. You may want to think about that. In the same place everyone has a gun, due to everyone being reservists and no one is killing anyone, in peace times.

? · Answer

it is easy to teach responsibility and understanding to children, unfortuntely few people do it.  With all students you have to teach by being the best example of what you are teaching.  For instance, if you are a smoker, the chances are that your children will be even if you are constantly telling them not to.

As for teaching a water-down version that does not make any sense.  I will teach the same Karate to adults as children but it is not until I feel comfortable that they will not use it do I show them the most destructive way to use it.  Some children show me more understanding that adults so I will teach them more.

Anonymous · Answer

Pretty clear you don't have kids and forgot what it's like to be a kid. Too bad. I grew up in a martial arts environment. My kids are growing up in a martial arts environment. There's a hell of a lot more to MA then a choke. That's being seriously ignorant. We start teaching kids wrestling at 4 sometimes younger. They learn (wrestling version) arm-bars front heads and throws. That is exactly what teaches them that they are responsible for their training partners safety. Same thing with MA. It's how we teach control. Drill, drill, drill then drill some more.

Just because YOU don't get it doesn't mean others don't. It's the sheltered odds that usually end up doing the dumbest **** because no one had taught them only sheltered them from reality.

FYI we teach groups of kids understanding and discipline with their parents watching. I regularly get parents saying they've never seen a group of kids that young so well disciplined.

You need to ask more and assume less.

Leo L · Answer

We don't teach 4 year olds.  We do take first graders, if they will stay focused.  Most leave within a year.  Those that stay may progress to a level where they are beginning to "get it."  By middle school, they may be half way to black.  We actually had one middle school student make it to first black last year.  Her parents and older sister are black belts.  You can teach them responsibility and understanding, but it takes time and patience.  Ours is not a money making effort.

Renken 4th · Answer

Kids learn from watching who they are their favorites in adult or who cares for them in a house.

Trending News

Is it possible to teach responsibility and understanding to kids?

7 Answers