15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
The myth of instant skill and what causes it?

I’ve a question for you all:

When can we say legitimately we have “done” a technique?

Mastering a technique – if that’s even possible – is not what I’m talking about. The reason I ask the question is because I recently heard a person state that they had “done” the technique that was being practised “before”. The strong inference was disappointment that they were being made to do something twice. Almost in the same way that one may not want to watch a film they had already seen. It’s certainly not the first time I’ve heard this thinking expressed, but it was the occasion that promoted this post.

With my traditional background, endless repetition is something I am comfortable with. Yes, we can vary drills to keep things fresh, but fundamentally to get good at something it needs to be repeated correctly – because being repeated incorrectly is counterproductive – thousands and thousands of times.

You can’t get strong through lifting weights once. You can’t improve your flexibility by stretching once. You can’t improve your cardiovascular fitness by running once. And you can’t develop skill having “done” a technique once either. We need consistent repetition over a significant period of time to develop anything.

I think skilled (as in truly skilled) practitioners of any physical activity get this. For example, Baseball Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson said, “A baseball swing is a very finely tuned instrument. It is repetition, and more repetition, then a little more after that.” So why do we have a subsection in the martial arts world that think “collecting techniques” is a valid alternative to endlessly drilling them?

To me, I would only regard a technique as being “learnt” when I could apply it atomatically, in a live environment, with a reasonable chance of success. “Learnt” is not the same as “mastered” though. It just means we have a workable degree of understanding. Having reached that stage, the process should continue as we seek endless improvement.

Endless improvement needs to be sought. The instant we are “satisfied” is the exact same instant we stop improving. So if that happens the second time we “do” a technique, we are forever stuck as beginners; and what is worse we are close-minded beginners who think we have nothing to learn.

The other, perhaps more subtle, side of this is skilled people forgetting that their skills were not acquired instantaneously. When such people are shown something new, they reject it via a thought process of “I can’t do it immediately as well as someone who has practised it, therefore the technique is wrong / won’t work.”

Did anyone find their cross / gyakuzuki worked immediately the first time they were shown it? Or did they feel uncoordinated and found it took a lot of practise before they could land it without thinking while under pressure?

The experienced person should know that new techniques takes time and work to effectively assimilate. We would condemn the beginner that tried reverse punch once and then concluded it didn’t work because they could not do it. So why do we sometimes accept that from more skilled people?

There are of course some differences between the experienced person and the unexperienced beginner when it comes to processing new techniques. The experienced person can legitimately reject a method they see as flawed based on their own experience. For example, if someone were to tell me that “no touch knockouts” work, but I just need more practise, then I’m going to reject that premise as my experience tell me that such stuff is unequivocal BS.

An experienced person also has a set of movement skills and a good mind-body link, so they are able to get a reasonable approximation of the technique in a much faster time. They therefore may find that the approximation is headed in the wrong direction for them and “feels wrong”.

All of that said, if others are able to make a method work effectively and consistently, it would be a mistake for the more experienced person to reject such a method out of hand just because they could not make it work immediately. In that case, they are rejecting a demonstrably effective method.

The point of all this is to raise some of the issues surrounding the myth of “instant skill”. Both beginners and experienced people can fall into the trap of “technique collection” as opposed to “technique learning”; and the related issue of “technique rejection” which is also opposed to “technique learning”.

I would suggest there are two main causes for these issues. Firstly, we humans like novelty and tend to prefer that over repetition. Secondly, the needs of real skill can be masked if there is not realistic testing. Without testing it can seem like a superficial and intellectual knowledge of a method is sufficient. Add in testing, and we quickly become absolved on that misunderstanding. Live practise is a must for all kinds of reasons, but one thing it really does bring home is the need for lots of repetition as things simply don’t work without it.

I think that sufficiently frames the issue and I’d be interested in everyone’s thoughts on the following:

1 – At what point can we say a technique has been learnt or “done” (accepting that mastery is something else)?

2 - Why do some not see repetition as the “mother of skill”? Is it just a lack of live practise? A desire to seek the entertainment of novelty over the repetition needed for true skill? Something else?

3 – Under what circumstances can experienced people reject new methods outright? Never? When people who are experienced in those methods can’t make them work consistently themselves? When it feels “wrong”? Only when they have practised it for a sufficient length of time?

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
1 – At what point can we say a technique has been learnt or “done” (accepting that mastery is something else)?

2 - Why do some not see repetition as the “mother of skill”? Is it just a lack of live practise? A desire to seek the entertainment of novelty over the repetition needed for true skill? Something else?

3 – Under what circumstances can experienced people reject new methods outright? Never? When people who are experienced in those methods can’t make them work consistently themselves? When it feels “wrong”? Only when they have practised it for a sufficient length of time?

1 - I think this will most certainly be defined differently by most people. Personally, I would consider a technique to be learned when it can be performed correctly, without thinking, in a non-resistant drill, more than 75% of the time. At that point, I would say that the person doing the technique has done enough repetitions to know how to perform the technique correctly. That said, this is just the start of of the developmental process. You may have mentally learned the technique, but that doesn't mean you're any good at it.

2 - I think entertainment may be part of it, especially for people who are hobbyist martial artists. Some long-term martial artists are technique collectors, though. They will attend all kinds of seminars, read tons of books, and watch lots of videos, but they'll only do a technique enough to mentally learn it, so they can remember it later, but they don't care to drill it enough to actually be good at applying the technique.

3 - Some techniques can be discarded as "not for me," if they don't fit within my methodology, but they may be valuable for my students, so even then I may not totally disregard them. For example, my bad knee makes crescent and axe kicks painful and difficult, and they don't really fit into my fighting methods, so I don't practice them much at all, these days. That said, I can do them well enough to teach them, because some of our students like to do karate tournaments, and use these kicks. On the other hand, some techniques may seem like they could be valuable, if they work, but the person demonstrating can't make them work with resistance, or you can't make them work. In that case, I wouldn't disregard them completely, either. Sometimes, it just takes time to develop the skills necessary to use them. It could also be that it takes a little experimentation to get it right.

JWT
JWT's picture

Great post Iain.  

1 – At what point can we say a technique has been learnt or “done” (accepting that mastery is something else)?

I would distinguish between learned and done. Learned (for me) is when a person can consistently and reliably utilise a technique in the context for which it has been taught to them. Mastery perhaps is the ability both to apply it in other contexts (again reliably) and also to be able to identify and set up those contexts. Done however is a different kettle of fish. When a student has practised a technique so many times that they have mentally disengaged and further repetition will be of poorer and detrimental technique, I would say that the technique has been done - for that training session. That 'done' threshold naturally changes with experience.

2 - Why do some not see repetition as the “mother of skill”? Is it just a lack of live practise? A desire to seek the entertainment of novelty over the repetition needed for true skill? Something else?

I think modern media exposes us to too many supeficial shortcuts. I have seen Dan grades who I thought had a good grasp of a system deteriorate so quickly due to lack of regular training (because they were teaching) or get confused so easily by learning another system in cross training that I realised their grasp of the basics was at best superficial, like an actor learning a fight routine for a movie.  In the movies people rarely see the hard grind that people with genuinely good skill levels have to put in, the hours of repetition. In games media people can replicate on the screen in moments skills that in real life take countless amounts of repetition. At risk of sounding old fashionned I suspect that this is in part due to false portrayal in movies and in part due to shortened attention spans related to the 'on demand' environment we live in. This perhaps links to a number of private conversations about media that we have had concerning the need to keep youtube videos short. Indeed I recently had a very well-known karate instructor 15 years my junior tell me he had not watched one of my bunkai videos because at 9 minutes it was 'too long'.

3 – Under what circumstances can experienced people reject new methods outright? Never? When people who are experienced in those methods can’t make them work consistently themselves? When it feels “wrong”? Only when they have practised it for a sufficient length of time?

It depends on whether the new is really new, and whether the person has enough experience in their own system to be able to make an immediate appraisal that the new method would not fit holistically within that system and will create issues both in training and under pressure. If a person does not have that level of experience then I would say 'never' unless the 'experienced demonstrator' cannot make them work consistently in the context for which they are teaching them.

All the best

John Titchen

 

T Wall
T Wall's picture

For question 1 I think Wastelander said it best.  When a technique can be executed in an efficient manner within a permissive or semi-permissive drill with a success rate of at least 75% of the time it would be reasonable to say the technique has been learned.  Proficiency would be a different matter involving a measure of success within a drill with almost total non-compliance from the opponent.

Question 2, this situation I believe results from a need to see tangible results vs. a lack of patience.  A lot of folks have a hard time pouring effort and time into something that they can't see results from within a short period.  Be it from a lack of patience or lack of confidence.  Instructors would probably be best served helping the students set achievable goals within a given technique along with providing a form of feedback i.e. drills, etc. so the student can actually observe the progress.  Another point to supplement that, sometimes practitioners get lost as to what they are actually trying to achieve.  Sometimes it's a lack of attention on their part and sometimes it's a failure to direct or demonstrate on the instructor’s part.

To caveat the last sentence, there are instructors out there that are collectors of technique themselves.  This leads to the students learning from example.  I'm not even going to try to broach the reasons why someone with many years experience would choose this route but I see it more than I care to.

Question 3, when a practitioner understands their strengths and weaknesses or limitations it makes it easier for them to understand what will or will not work best for them.  Perhaps seeking guidance from someone more experienced with the technique would lend more insight when deciding to bypass a technique.  As for students, it will fall on the instructor to help guide students based upon their experience and observations.  It also falls on instructors to enforce solid ideals regarding learning new techniques.  They set the bar with the attitude a new technique is not always wrong or right as much as it may not be right for some people yet right for others.  As well, some techniques may require some tweaking to make it work for them so again solid instruction and guidance is important.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all,

Certainly the modern mindset is more and more, and as quickly as possible.  This is a direct contradiction to learning a functonal martial art  - or is it?

It seems to me that the collection of techniques, whether a "simple " right  cross,  or applications from loads of different kata is the standard.

It's fairly common knowledge that an overload of options for a single scenario is not a good thing, yet most, if not all do it.

It takes great discipline to narrow your study and be content,  I'm attempting to do just that myself , but even then I  probably have certainly one kata too many on my syllabus,  if not two - and my syllabus only has four kata.

This is borne of student expectations for the most part - they become bored, they leave. I'm attempting to educate my group - so far so good. 

Point No.1 - Me personally,  I never really feel like a technique is "done". I just feel I can always improve it. If we're talking technique of a non resistant type then my completion level, without conscious thought would have to be no less than 95%, against an increased level of resistance that percentage would reduce, but against a decent level of non compliance I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than completing a drill six or seven out of ten.

No.2 - patience,  or lack of it is an issue. I make a big play on promising myself that in tonight's session I will only teach two Naihanchi Oyo, and we'll drill them to death. Inevitably,  as I notice the body language of the students change as they become a little  bored with the two drills I'll  throw a couple more Oyo in there, and then curse my weakness once everyone has left. That's something I  plan on changing .

No.3 - certainly "feel" is very important to me, but at the same time I have a duty to share things with my students that may not work for me. I will teach the correct technique and the principles and with my student figure if it "feels" right for that individual. With my particular approach 

Regards 

Mark

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I'll go by what my instructor has always told us, "Until you put a gallon of sweat into a technique, it isn't yours".

As to the other part, I think it is because westerners (can't speak to others since I fall into this category) tend to "think" about everything.  They understand it intellectually and think that "they got it".  What they have is stage three of learning.  

Stage One: Unconscious Incompetency-they dont' know that they don't know

Stage Two: Conscious Incompetency-they now know that they don't know.

Stage Three: Conscious Competency-they know that they know

Stage Four: Unconscious Competency-they dont' have to think about what they know (this would be when the technique is "theirs")

I think the problem is made more problematic because in many schools, they first stages are one in the air.  There is no feedback on a live body to really know if what they did was effective or not.  For example, if I give someone a golf club and show them how to hold the club and swing it, they might say that they "got it".  But, when they try to hit the ball and it doesn't go anywhere it should or for any length, they immediately get feedback and start to make adjustments to the swing.

Dod
Dod's picture

On technique collecing:   I like the idea I heard from Vince Morris that you try to create your "tool box" to carry of a few go-to techniques that you are good at and comfortable with. You also have a workshop with lots more tools that you're not so comfortable with at the moment, but over time you may add or swap with those in your box.

I think we all like to study new techniques, but we must be aware when they are not yet at a useable standard. 

jimw449
jimw449's picture

This post, and your questions, reminded me of one of your podcasts that I revisited recently.  I've unabashedly stolen from it to explain to our students the reasons for line drills.  http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/case-kihon-podcast

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

1 – At what point can we say a technique has been learnt or “done” (accepting that mastery is something else)?

2 - Why do some not see repetition as the “mother of skill”? Is it just a lack of live practise? A desire to seek the entertainment of novelty over the repetition needed for true skill? Something else?

3 – Under what circumstances can experienced people reject new methods outright? Never? When people who are experienced in those methods can’t make them work consistently themselves? When it feels “wrong”? Only when they have practised it for a sufficient length of time?

1) English is not my native language, so my understanding of the words "learnt" or "done" may be a little skewed.

Anyway, I would say that in training we have "done" a technique when everybody has practiced it often enough to have it readily available. When we have "done" technique X then I may use X as a reference to start teaching a similar technique Y. Let's say I'd want to teach kosa-uke (first move after the yoi position in Jion kata). I might start explaining it by saying: "It's a bit like gedan-barai combined with uchi-uke (in-to-out). Remember? we've done both. Take them and try and put them together." They don't have to be able to show perfect form or application of the techniques. But they should be able to recall and perform them when prompted, so we can build on them.

I would say that somebody has actually "learnt" a technique when they don't really have to think about them much. They can just perform or use them when asked to.

The next level would probably be "mastered", when somebody just uses a technique naturally when appropriate.

The lowest level could then be called "knowing" a technique, with the meaning of "being aquainted with".

The same levels could of course be applied to learning kata. "Knowing" = seen it, did it once or twice; "done" = practiced it enough to be able to perform it on count or even alone on hajime; "learnt" = familiar with details of movement, has a an overview image of the entire kata in mind, could start teaching the form; "mastered" = kata is second nature, knows all the details and the hows and whys.

All of this could of course include applications if you like.

2) In the context of karate most people I've met do get that repetition is necessary to become skilled. Even the young kids get it. They might not be happy about it (done that, what next), they might even leave after a few sessions, but they do get it.

3) I guess it's fair to reject new methods if they are scientifically flawed or dangerous (there are some really bad knife defences out there).

Also a method may be rejected by an individual if it requires skills that that person is incapable of (e.g. high kicks for those of us who can only kick waist-high). Still it might be useful to learn it because it might be the right method to teach to another student.

When it feels wrong, it's still worth trying it. Maybe you get accustomed to the feel after a while. If it still doesn't do for you, you can still reject it later. You have then at least learned that this doesn't work for you, which should be regarded as a valuable finding.

I don't think a method should be rejected just because the person showing it to you cannot make it work. It might still be a very good method for you, and that could be the reason why they show it to you in the first place.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for all the posts folks! I think this is making for an interesting thread … and seeing as we’ve had 1200+ reads so far it seems others agree :-)

One issue that naturally flows from the discussion so far is the notion of variety of technique vs. singular repetition. It’s been touched on already and is probably best summed up by Bruce Lee’s quote:

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

I’m sure we’d all generally agree with the sentiment expressed. When people are “technique collecting” then they are seeking a superficial exposure to many techniques over the acquisition of a far smaller number that have been truly internalised and will work under pressure.

As we’ve already discussed, some people want to do something once, consider it “done”, and then want to see the next new “bright and shiny” technique.

I think there’s a bit of nuance that needs brought out here though. Let’s take a simple cross / gyakuzuki. Most of us will start teaching it static and performed as a pure motion or on the pads. However, real situations are extremely variable and that needs to be factored into our practise. In addition to doing the “beginner's ABC version” we also need:

To practise it from a natural posture (i.e. pre-emption)

To practise it from a guard (fighting)

To practise it moving forward

To practise it moving backward

To practise it while leaning to the side (evasion)

To practise it while moving clockwise

To practise it while moving anticlockwise

To practise while crouching

To practise it while jumping

To practise it while moving into a kick

To practise it while moving out of a kick

To practise it while following on with a lead hook

To practise it following on from a lead hook

To practise it with a vertical fist

To practise it with an open palm

And so on.

There are innumerable variations. It only when we can make the technique fit the circumstances that it has really value.

So the guy who does one version once is obviously about as far from competent as could be. But the guy who does one specific version thousands of times is also very limited because they have a very “fixed” version of the technique and have never practised varying the technique as reality will require.

I would say that all variations are simply differing expressions of common principles. There is a need to, and huge value in, practising all the variations of the common technique. However, this remains part of the repetition of the method. We are not seeking variety to alleviate misplaced boredom, but instead understanding that a common method can be applied in a number of ways and that we need to practise in a fashion that mirrors the fluid nature of reality such that we can apply the technique in the optimum way in any set of given cirumstances.

The point I’m making is that, done right, there is lots of variety inherent in true skill development. We should avoid doing something once and considering it “done”. We should also avoid drilling something endlessly in the exact same way because it develops very limited skills which are counter to the fluid nature of reality. Instead, what we should do, is endlessly drill the method in a way that exposes us to all the various ways in which it may be applied (such that the principles are internalised and not just one example of those principles) … and that in itself will ensure functionality, highly refined technique, and prevent boredom because, although we are ultimately drilling the same thing, we are drilling it in differing ways.

In short, variety as a means to avoid repetition is bad. However, repetition without variety is also bad.

All the best,

Iain

Les_Lacey
Les_Lacey's picture

Learn the movement, to forget the movement you have to practice the techniques so much that they become automatic, reflex, building neural pathways that the process will give the muscles a sense of muscle memory / neuromuscular facilitation. Looking to make the action become natural, but technical proficiency doesn’t make a great Karateka; good movement comes from the transcendence of technique to move freely, to go beyond technique one must forget what’s been learned. If you don’t use correct form at the start of your training regimen, any flaws in your technique will become bad habits. It will take a long time to break these bad habits, which is why Instructors / coaches train with fundamentals.  Any movement, continuum that’s intact, can become any technique, so in crucial terms, there are no mistakes you just learn from them.

Many resources offer insight into how to perfect your technique, but nothing can replace an expert analysis of your particular style. Work with an experienced Instructor who can dissect your performance and point out your flaws as you’re more unlikely not to be able to see them. Make the movement of the techniques part of your being! Practice is only to strengthen your foundation of technique, movement and philosophy. We need to learn solid fundamentals of movement along with a solid delivery system and then have the freedom to explore. This is how we develop the styles of movement that fit our bodies best.   This principle extends to every pursuit worth mastering, learn the discipline that allows this to take place. Learning constantly occurs, even outside of a structured dojo environment, don’t waste an opportunity. Take the functional, discard the ineffective and make it your own. The most important practice happens not in the dojo but in daily life, you carry out the principles of that practice out in daily life: the real dojo.

Basic: An introduction to a subject. Fundamental: The foundation upon which a system arises from. When someone is talking about basics we can get insulted. And why not? An 'introduction to…' seems like someone telling you to go back to pre-school. What can you learn about reading by re-reading the basics? You mastered the basics years ago! Be sure that you don’t ignore how to train the Fundamentals :-)

Marc
Marc's picture

Another thought on the "techniques collector". Of course, if they really only collect them and never repeat/drill any of them, they won't become proficient in any of them. Repetition is necessary to become good at anything - it's just the way the brain works.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

So why do we have a subsection in the martial arts world that think “collecting techniques” is a valid alternative to endlessly drilling them?

Maybe an answer (at least for some) lies in the following statement:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I would say that all variations are simply differing expressions of common principles. [...] a common method can be applied in a number of ways [...]

[...] what we should do, is endlessly drill the method in a way that exposes us to all the various ways in which it may be applied (such that the principles are internalised and not just one example of those principles) … and that in itself will ensure functionality, highly refined technique, and prevent boredom because, although we are ultimately drilling the same thing, we are drilling it in differing ways.

So maybe some "technique collectors" do in fact collect many examples of common principles. So they can get to the core of how karate works. - Still endless repetition is required to internalise the principles. But the many examples might give them an idea of the various ways in which they may be applied.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
So maybe some "technique collectors" do in fact collect many examples of common principles. So they can get to the core of how karate works. - Still endless repetition is required to internalise the principles. But the many examples might give them an idea of the various ways in which they may be applied.

I think that’s a very good point … and it may be helpful to mark distinction between “technique collectors” and “principle seekers” in line with your wider sentiment.

Technique collectors: Want to learn as many “tricks” as possible. Don’t drill until technique can be applied automatically under stress. Consider something “learnt” the instant they have an intellectual understanding of it. Never progress to internalising a single example of the principle, let alone the principle itself.

Principle seekers: Want to internalise core principles so they can freely and appropriately expresses them in live situations. Will drill techniques endlessly in a variety of ways while being ever mindful of the fact all the variations are just different expressions of an unchanging set of principles. Know that nothing is ever fully learnt.

Marc wrote:
the many examples might give them an idea of the various ways in which they may be applied.

That’s key for me. It’s good to look at alternate examples of common principles because in doing so it increases your understanding of those principles. We need to get beyond the example, but the only way we do that is by understanding what the example shows us. “Technique collectors” are endlessly stuck at the surface level of superficial. However, those who only drill a single example are also likely to get stuck at “technique level”; and even if they do progress to principles they are likely to see them in monochrome as oppose to glorious Technicolor.

As Motobu said, “One must learn how to apply the principles of the kata and how to bend with the winds of adversity.” I like this quote as it makes clear that what we really need is an internalised principle-based understanding of kata such that we can move as the ever-changing nature of conflict dictates.

This idea is expressed endlessly in the writings of the past masters, but it’s not widely understood or embraced.

“Always perform kata exactly, combat is another matter.” – Gichin Funakoshi, 20 Precepts

“Never be shackled by the rituals of kata but instead move freely according to the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses”.  - Genwa Nakasone, explaining the above line from Funakoshi

"It is obvious that these kata must be trained and practised sufficiently, but one must not be 'stuck' in them. One must withdraw from the kata to produce forms with no limits or else it becomes useless. It is important to alter the form of the trained kata without hesitation to produce countless other forms of training. Essentially, it is a habit - created over long periods of training. Because it is a habit, it comes to life with no hesitation - by the subconscious mind." - Hironori Otsuka

And so on.

This is a long way from the “choreographed battle” that many see kata as.

All the best,

Iain

OnlySeisan
OnlySeisan's picture

This issue is a failing of martial arts teachers, who don't explain to their students right off the bat that there is no guarantee of success in conflict that the odds are very high that they will get hurt or die against a determined violent attacker. The endless repetition of technique is not to "master" anything. It's a hedge against the alternative, and only a hedge. It's the only thing a person can do to try and increase their odds. The more time spent training one technique the better you understand it and the better chances you will have. Understanding also takes study outside of karate. It's the study of anatomy, physiology, geomotry and physics to understand why things work and when they will work. All techniques are built on this. Not to mention that a technique doesn't do anything, you the person performs the action. Training is to make yourself better through a continual process of learning and discovery.

A failing on teachers, who don't stress thinking. Thinking outside the realm of karate, the dojo and what their sensei says, but most are too scared to do this, because they might lose their paycheck when their students discover that they're paying them for no reason.

Jeremy_Rhynes
Jeremy_Rhynes's picture

I will admit to a bit of a "technique collector" tendency, though it stems from my cat-like insatiable curiosity.  "How do you do that? How does it feel? What would it take for me to actually add this to my 'tool box' (to borrow shamelessly from a previous post)."  In the technique collecting, it's a bit like wine tasting (or scotch tasting, let's be honest).  I want to sample it a bit, decide if that particular technique is something I enjoy at this stage in my life.  It creates an awareness of something, to be revisited later.  It gives me a frame of reference for other things.  "This wine tastes similar to this, I know person X enjoys that wine, so I may suggest they seek out this wine." Student X may have an affinity or mindset compatible with a particular technique, and this technique is similar in either physical movement or philosophy.  I may not be intimately familiar with the technique, but I see the similarity, and may know an instructor or resource that knows it better, which I will then suggest for that students own journey.  I agree with the above thoughts that our faster pace of life and exposure to easy access to virtually everything makes us impatient.  I've seen it in my own training.  I've certainly not spent the entire last year learning only sanchin kata, though I do spend time each day examining it and looking for where I am weak in it.  In two years I've been exposed to all 12 of the standard Goju kata.  I have "done" them all.  Have I "learnt" them? Certainly not.  The one thing that has been most deeply emphasized in my dojo is the mindset that you never truly know anything; there is always more to learn about each subject.  I will say that the longer I've studied, the more prone to examination of the minutiae I've become.  This is surely in part tied to, again, that curiosity; but it is just as surely tied to the philosophy under which I've been trained.  Always learn, as soon as you think you've learned something, look harder, because I can guarantee 100% there's something new to learn about it.  Karate is, at the risk of sounding borderline blasphemous, much like reading your religious text of choice.  You will never understand it completely, because your perspective keeps changing.  (Note: this is drifting into stream of consciousness, so I'll wrap it up).  I think that "but I've done this already" then puts the burden on us as instructors, as mentors (especially to the young), to help the student then understand why "done" doesn't matter so much in the grand scheme of things, and hopeful help spark the inquisitive nature that motivates us to pick apart every movement, and then pick the pieces apart further, on that unending quest to understand, not just learn.  Even "learnt" can be a pitfall.  You see it all the time in academic examinations: learn for the test, forget for the rest.  Okay, I'm done rambling.