Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 213

Thread: Interview with Gary Turner

  1. #1

    Default Interview with Gary Turner

    I recently got the opportunity to interview Gary 'Smiler' Turner, a pro-fighter and trainer who posts on this site regularly. I got to pick his brains on a few topics and learn from his years of experience and wisdom.


    The interview ended up pretty long, so I divided it up into 2 parts.

    For Part 1 click here.

    For Part 2 click here.


    Give the interview a read and leave some comments if you have anything to add. Hope you all enjoy.
    Cutting-Edge MMA Conditioning Advice at REAL Combat Conditioning


    E-mail me at: JustinDevonshire@Hotmail.com

  2. #2
    "The UK's Lyoto Machida - Hit and Run, Baby" widge milward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    leigh nr manchester
    Posts
    10,632

    Default

    really enjoyed that.

    TTT for Smiler
    You can't put a limit on anything. The more you dream, the farther you get

    Team Colosseum

  3. #3

    Default

    Interesting interview.

    Regarding some of the explanations - emotional regulation is a better term , not control. We cannot control our emotions directly because the primary appraisals and subsequent emotional response is intuitive and beyond awareness. But we can make secondary, conscious, appraisals that modify their impact on subsequent thoughts and behaviour. This is done through altering goals and direction of focus which takes more effort. The point is that any emotion is always the result of some appriasal of a situation / event - past , present or future etc..based on goals.

    Pain also has an interesting social and contextual dimension - which impacts on the other 2 levels - people are more or less likely to disclose pain in certain situations because of the social consequences of doing so. Any treatment for pain should be multi-dimensional and not rely on peoples self report because of social desirability factors.

    I do beleive in imagery interventions. Its just that the explanations for efficacy does not necessarily need to be limted to the nervous system. There are psychological explanations too.

  4. #4
    Gary 'Smiler' Turner
    Pro Fighter

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Hi Truthseeker!

    Nice comments raised!

    Regulation/control, near enough the same thing. Remember in an interview I can only generalise...and your explanation is a lovely way of putting it!

    The main point I make with emotional regulation/control though is that we produce our emotions, we are responsible for the way we feel, whatever the process that produces the emotions within us. It is entirely within our control, and not from external sources. We may intuitively produce and feel the emotion following a trigger, but that trigger itself cannot cause our emotive response, it is our interpretation of it that causes the response.

    Your last sentence in the first paragraph is first class, explaining 'movement' quite nicely, and the work I do with time lines/tracing kinaesthetic/goal setting forms nicely within your statement. I like it!

    Yeah, pain is subjective for sure, its a good source of fun, linguistics, emotional reading to get a good calibration during a treatment. Could you expand on what you mean by 'multi-dimensional'? Also, can you expand on your meaning of your last paragraph? I need a bit of context to understand more...

    Best regards,

    Smiler

    Edited for typos and better reading, and still just about fails lol!

  5. #5

    Default

    The problem with "control" is that it points to a limited understanding of the complex role of emotions in behaviour. Emotions are not just "noise" in the system to be controlled and do not just act as causes of behaviour i.e anxiety to be controlled in order to produce a successful sporting performance. This is a tiny portion of the story and not even accurate.

    What about shame, guilt, pride, anger?? The term regulation is better because these emotions change our behaviour in evaluating options which leads to learning from the past , enhancing memory of past events and processing information among other things. e.g some emotions regulate us by motivating modification of future behaviour to avoid the negative emotional consequences of a similiar course of action that was experienced previously (e.g to avoid guilt).

    Following from, emotions, any interpretation of pain is a function of that person's history of similar pain, present context and future consequences of the pain. You need to evauate at different points in time if possible, in different contexts. Peoples response and interpretation of the same pain stimulus can change in different contexts. The pain system has inherent variability just like the others.

    All im saying with the imagery is how do you know your intervention s dont just make the performers feel more confident rather than effecting any change in the nervous system?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rob T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    9,171

    Default

    "And lately I’ve been developing time distortion techniques too, where the perception is that you are operating at a far faster rate than your opponent, enabling you to therefore react much quicker."

    I have heard Eddie Bravo also uses this technique.
    http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rob T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    9,171

    Default

    I guess that’s the main argument I have against the ‘mumbo-jumbo’ brigade. Everything I do, and is done by proper practitioners within the fields of NLP and hypnotherapy, is found in pure science. And I don’t mean fringe groups either – pure, accepted science.



    I’m taking time to learn the science behind each element so that if questioned I have the right answers, and can point in the direction for further learning. In further support of the science behind this, and the successful practice, the British Army are basing their leadership and coaching courses on NLP. I’m doing my training in this way through the army. (I’m not military, but often work alongside them.) They would not be doing so if it was just mumbo-jumbo!
    I have some questions about things you have said here;

    - "Everything I do, and is done by proper practitioners within the fields of NLP and hypnotherapy, is found in pure science."

    What is "pure" science? What do you mean that everything is found in science? Do you mean there are actual proper theories (supported by experimental testing) in place or that they are hypotheses based on existing scientific knowledge? The difference is vast.


    - "I’m taking time to learn the science behind each element so that if questioned I have the right answers, and can point in the direction for further learning."

    How can you know that everything is "based on science" if you are still learning the science?



    "In further support of the science behind this... ...the British Army are basing their leadership and coaching courses on NLP. ...They would not be doing so if it was just mumbo-jumbo!"

    The military have investigated alien encounters and the Americans and Russians both wasted vast amounts of money researching remote viewing/telepathy etc. Regardless, science does not become more accepted through recommendation.
    http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/

  8. #8
    Gary 'Smiler' Turner
    Pro Fighter

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Hi Mark!

    I actually agree with nearly everything you’ve put there, just the context being different. ‘Regulation’ and ‘control’ are different words heading in the same direction and the choice of words in the context I was using is just really semantics.

    As in my previous post, the main point I was making by utilising the word ‘control’ is that any emotions are produced 100% within – no external stimulus can give you the emotion, only your internal processes do that.

    I do like the term regulation, and you have also helped me to explain it better in the future.

    And I do like the movement through emotions, the pillars of the past and future expectations creating the present. It’s something I’ve been studying hard on, in particular with depression.

    Interpretation of pain is always context driven, 100%. Although pain is always experienced only in the present, so that is where I would always work. The present context is the one that counts – “what do you feel, now?” in pain work, in my opinion, is much better than what it was or what you think it will be. You can’t experience pain in in the past, nor the future, but only in the present. 100% agree in all respects to your third paragraph.

    In respect to the last paragraph, you know that the mind acts the same in respect to vividly imagined as to actual action. There are numerous EEG studies to show how the brain lights up during hypnosis and the corresponding areas, and due to being facilitated through new technology this is progressing. And there are numerous studies as you know into the results of visualisation in sports. Edit: And I think you know how neurology is trained through physical actions.

    As you know well science is catching up still with the field of psychology as the psychological processes don’t sit well with science due to the variables, and science and psychology is mainly based on evidence and results and suggested probability. (This wasn’t for you Mark, I know you know this inside out, it’s for others following the thread.) In respect to your last, the reason I don’t believe it’s just a confidence thing through seeing my results is that the changes happen on an unconscious level with instant reactions. And you know the mind controls the body through the nervous system. Confidence is just a state, and yet I’m seeing physiological reactions that weren’t there before. You’re training the mind to go from ‘not this, THIS’, and to see a stimulus and fire up the right neurology to react. Damn, my words aren’t flowing this morning, but please ask if you don’t get where I’m coming from!

    Edit: Just a thought Mark, but if the methodology works, and the results are achieved, even if it just down to confidence, is that a bad thing? I've been helping people make great changes, sometimes in just a few minutes, totally changing their performances for the better...so if the methodology works, shouldn't it be used? Just a point for discussion!

    Its worth pointing out that I’ve been studying how I react psychologically in sports now since the mid 80’s, as I’ve always wondered how and why I do what I was doing. This has led me to study various avenues, and I’ve ended up with NLP as the process it follows gives me the methodology to look into it deeper, and to tread the path that people have already followed. So in other words my journey currently is NLP, after around 25years of travel, it definitely didn’t start with NLP.

    Hi Rob, pure science I would say is founded on proper scientific principles, and not just people putting forward results without showing methodology replication and peer review – research the recent MRI scandal. Now, I’m mind reading here to understand what you mean, but I am basing my comment on what you term ‘proper theories’ and hypnotheses based on existing scientific knowledge. The difference isn’t vast. Science continues. You form a hypothesis and follow it. That’s what science is. And you don’t take the results from one study as being whats 100% right. It just offers a probability.

    To use an analogy, have a look at the science behind climate change, something I’ve studied hard, and can argue from all angles. Most of the models that results in the 1998 IPCC report, which governed the political approach of the last 10 years, has been found to have been based on incorrect information. A model is only as good as the information and processes you feed it with. The 2008 IPCC report completely overturned the 1998 report – because science moved on. And some of the models used here are being found to be incorrect already. That’s because science and study is fluid. All it says is that at this point in time, with this probability, we think this.

    Rob, I’m still learning the science because the science is progressing. And it goes into more depth than just a single result. I could read one peer reviewed ‘proper’ study that says one thing, take that as 100% fact, and ignore the face that another study carried out at the same time finds the complete opposite. I’m taking the time to make myself more rounded, have more depth in my knowledge. The NLP approach is to find out what people are doing that works (or doesn’t, if you’re modelling from the other way) and utilise it. And I am learning what works, and then empowering myself to work backwards to find out why it works.

    Rob, have I ever said that NLP has ever claimed to be a science? Damn, all NLP is is actually a principle on a base level – find what works, and use it. There are a lot of misconceptions. In the leadership and coaching being rolled out in the army they have looked at what works, and utilise success in their approach. Successful franchises use the same. Branson and the Virgin brand uses the same. Model success, replicate it. And once it is established then vary it to try and improve on success.

    For example, the US military discovered that the best way to command a soldier was to give him two how’s followed by a what. For example, stand up, walk over there, and close the door. Studies of linguistics can add a command tonality with a question syntax for even more power, ‘stand up, walk over there, and could you close the door’. Take it further, add a time control. ‘Stand up, walk over there, and could you close the door now.’

    The term NLP was apparently made up on the spot, but it does explain the three areas nicely. Neurology, linguistics and programming. Any NLP ‘personal intervention’ techniques have actually just been a by-product of the overall approach. They aren’t the be-all and end-all of NLP.

    For coaching and leadership have a look at linguistics, The National Value Centre and Clare Graves work, Meyers Briggs all as just the tip of the iceberg. Please don’t just put NLP in with alien encounters – because as you can read that is just a perception and not reality, although unfortunately one that is often portrayed by practitioners.

    I’m liking these discussions, they make me think. And that’s a good thing.

    Smiler

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rob T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    9,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiler View Post
    Hi Rob, pure science I would say is founded on proper scientific principles, and not just people putting forward results without showing methodology replication and peer review – research the recent MRI scandal. Now, I’m mind reading here to understand what you mean, but I am basing my comment on what you term ‘proper theories’ and hypnotheses based on existing scientific knowledge. The difference isn’t vast. Science continues. You form a hypothesis and follow it. That’s what science is. And you don’t take the results from one study as being whats 100% right. It just offers a probability.
    The difference is indeed vast. A hypothesis is just a guess based on data and current knowledge... an educated guess in most cases, but still just a guess/an idea of how something happens. A theory is a hypothesis which is supported by experimental data and can provide accurate, testable predictions. BIG difference.

    I know you don't just take results from one study as being 100% but fail to see what that has to do with the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory can always be disproven but never completely proven as infallible. Back to...

    What do you mean that everything is found in science? Do you mean there are actual proper theories (supported by experimental testing) in place or that they are hypotheses based on existing scientific knowledge? The difference is vast.


    Quote Originally Posted by Smiler View Post
    To use an analogy, have a look at the science behind climate change, something I’ve studied hard, and can argue from all angles. Most of the models that results in the 1998 IPCC report, which governed the political approach of the last 10 years, has been found to have been based on incorrect information. A model is only as good as the information and processes you feed it with. The 2008 IPCC report completely overturned the 1998 report – because science moved on. And some of the models used here are being found to be incorrect already. That’s because science and study is fluid. All it says is that at this point in time, with this probability, we think this.
    Analogies are not required here and I don't see the point in this one. No one is arguing that scientific knowledge isn't changable (only idiots think that). Science, by it's very nature, is constantly correcting and updating itself. I don't understand why this point has even been brought up?


    Quote Originally Posted by Smiler View Post
    Rob, I’m still learning the science because the science is progressing. And it goes into more depth than just a single result. I could read one peer reviewed ‘proper’ study that says one thing, take that as 100% fact, and ignore the face that another study carried out at the same time finds the complete opposite. I’m taking the time to make myself more rounded, have more depth in my knowledge. The NLP approach is to find out what people are doing that works (or doesn’t, if you’re modelling from the other way) and utilise it. And I am learning what works, and then empowering myself to work backwards to find out why it works.
    What science? Provide references to the studies involved. I know trials can have opposite conclusions but they are very often down to the design of the study, if not then further work is obviously needed and that area of scientific knowledge needs more research. Again, I am not really sure what this has to do with the points I made. So...

    How can you know that everything is "based on science" if you are still learning the science?


    Quote Originally Posted by Smiler View Post
    Rob, have I ever said that NLP has ever claimed to be a science? Damn, all NLP is is actually a principle on a base level – find what works, and use it.
    I never said you claimed NLP was a science? What you did claim was that everything within NLP is "found in science". To then talk about it not "being a science" seems strange to me and makes me think your understand of science may be a little off base. I don't know whether you mean "it's not an exact science" or whether you mean it's not a defined branch of science like quantum mechanics. Either way it makes no sense to me, because the first is nothing to do with real science, it's just a common saying in English language, and the second is just based on an arbitrary division of knowledge within science.




    I am not arguing whether the stuff you do works or not (for now, lol), just questioning you on your use of "science" as a general, ambiguous factor to back up what you do. That's not how science works.
    Last edited by Rob T; 12-02-2010 at 10:15 AM.
    http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/

  10. #10

    Default

    TTT for Gary "the mind reader" Turner.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This website uses cookies to enhance user experience. They can be disabled at any time. Please see our FAQ's for details.