Crediting and Citing Martial Sources; A Strategy of Cohort Replacement in Development, Deployment, and Maintenance of Martial Research

This is a pre-publish rough draft; deployed for expediency.

It is time to pull an ace out of the sleeve: primary and founding/originating sources of measures, predictions, and explanations are cited for spatial-temporal localization for the purpose of supporting optimization of resource expenditures in pro-knowledge research efforts as constrained by unceasing ever-growing inclusiveness in ethics. Crediting/citing a secondary source of novel knowledge that had instructed, provided, handed off, mentioned, issued, communicated, transmitted, published, and/or mentioned said measures, predictions, and explanations is not credited/cited. That is, unless the source of novel knowledge (and skill) mentioned “produces” a novel measure, prediction, and/or explanation or any combination of these (and their applications), and this novelty is mentioned. This attribution of “production” is largely a matter of a dimension of macro- to micro- cultural and institutional frames.

For example, if one employs concept X from C, and C got it from B, and B got it from A, A is credited/cited, not C or B. If one brainstorms, infers, deduces, inducts, conjectures, proposes, measures, predicts, and/or explains Y and got it from “nowhere” but insight, and upon a comprehensive review of existing literature (and application) reveals that A measured, predicted, and explained the underlying phenomena of X prior to Y, then A is credited/cited. A is credited not for compensation, but for localization in a more complete knowledge graph. A is credited/cited so that other knowledge (and skill) workers can explore A’s frame of reference (i.e., life course etc.) for the purpose of greater knowledge (and skill) production.

For a martial researcher in both basic and applied martial sciences, this exploration of a frame of reference is through longitudinal studies most often in direct observation inclusive of participation, though it may take time to develop comfort in a participant to accommodate with minimal reactance in sensory fields “contaminated” by said observer. This reduction of reactance (i.e., de-contamination) may be developed through [redacted], which is often a closely guarded emergent exaptative [exapted]. Sociological, anthropological, psychological, and intelligence research methods, and craft assists here.

For example a scholarly journal is not cited in text, but only as a matter of location of the primary source within a journal in the list of references as a matter of convenience to accelerate location of said source. The in-text citation itself supports optimal recognition and recall as a matter of a mnemonic device for research support in a Homo sapiens species (at current).

However, that all said, a proper protocol for this effort is reliant on a community in its upkeep, for if this effort is built and maintained sporadically, then it will be more difficult to build a knowledge graph (e.g., scientific literature) of measures, predictions and explanations (i.e., science). The only way to build this in-flight after it has not been built for so long (e.g., martial arts), is to issue a stop work order and build it with tremendous effort and opportunity cost. This effort would require the suspension of eminent strain as a result of disconnects between cultural goals and institutional means (i.e., strain; Merton, 1938) in order to halt the chaotic field of strain’s adaptations (e.g., innovation, revolution etc.) as reinforced by psychosocial dynamics as constrained and reinforced by economarket polarization.

Therefore in review, attempts to “stop” strain adaptation in an effort to install, setup, and operate a general martial attribution model is contingent on the social value as predicated by a economarket polarization in compensation for said stop work order. This does not seem to be a need concomitant a superpositional past, present, future.

As a consequence for a lack of need for an attribution model’s more compete system, an alternative strategy is possible. Using knowledge of age-cohort-period (APC; TODO) analysis, one need simply roll out social events [redacted] in order to replace existing feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of future populations as cohorts die off.

To borrow from James Carville’s, “it’s the economy, stupid”—it’s the youth, stupid. These are the people that are not yet labeled “developed” and are engaged most in explorations of identity. What better martial artist is there? In other words, it’s all the people originators and founders hung out with (oh look, Jesus) before a majority of said originators and founders arrived at popularity’s demand meeting supply through compensation, transforming innovation into ritual, and its authoritarian compliance for the purpose of achieving introjected and internalized cultural goals through the institutional means of a ritualized repeating reapplication of a system of exchange (i.e., the religion of economism).

So what is an n-artist to do? The Trolly Problem will not save identity. The Halting Problem renders a Trolly Problem moot. The Packing Problem compresses the remnant bits. The [redacted].




In support of these efforts is top-down and bottom-up crude controls and refined regulation of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors (i.e,, attitude), where thoughts (i.e., cognition) is inclusive of cortical midline structures as effective reaction wheels and attitude control systems used in feed-forward regulation (i.e., self-regulation) and co-contractive control (i.e., self-control). As feed-forward regulation is less resource dependent in metabolic needs, and co-contractive control is more resource dependent in metabolic need (see Gribble et al., 2003). To repeat for effect (i.e., re-ligion), drive behavior toward homeostasis through regulation is feed-forward, and control is co-contractive. Credit and citation in these contexts is feed-forward, in that metabolic efficiency is maintained by providing optimized cognitive structures of linguistic frames, in icon, sign, and index.




Besides, “common” in common knowledge as defined operationally would be knowledge that one finds in a random sample where each member of a population is assured equal chance for selection. If this measure at a proper sampling size fails to produce statistically significant “commonality” of words/schemas corresponding to well known emotions, then the words/schemas is determined to be less common.1

In this respect a great majority of concepts in martial arts are uncommon, though are attributed to commonality via an invalid measure of commonality in suffering selection bias in drawing on convenience samples of martial artists and defining this sample as representative of commonality.

However if the practicum of martial arts assembled can define clear borders on what is and isn’t martial with respect to sponsoring fields of science, and succeeds at issuing a stop work to deploy said attribution model, then maybe, perhaps, “common” may adopt a population of martial artists. That said, it would seem more keen on martial artists subject to strain to preferentially define fuzzy borders as informed by in- and out-group behaviors already well understood, with more research coming, in scientific literature.

In these respects, it is far more beneficial and worthy to consider these thoughts as put forth to consider quite seriously the cohort replacement effect as strategy and tactic aforementioned as a matter of top-down cognitive control and regulation, yet also as a result of natural and artificial selection. It goes without saying, thus far, that this effort is already well underway, and is now, well beyond stoppable.


Roy Æ Hodges


1 The word “correspondence” here is the degree of alignment between sign and object, in the “spirit and letter” of Charles Peirces’s (1932) excellent works on illuminating semiotics. This is an example of a note which allows for another to springboard into something very valuable in the study, discovery, practice, and application of martial science. The word “schema” is a word imported from philosophy and psychology, though here it leans toward cognitive science of schemata which organizes experiences and is useful in inferencing—it is a common-enough concept with deep roots to avoid direct citation.However, it may be useful to know that the author is more inclined toward Gestalt perspectives of Jean Piaget (1923), where schema was introduced to psychology.


Gribble, P. L., Mullin, L. I., Cothros, N., & Mattar, A. (2003). Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy. Journal of neurophysiology89(5), 2396–2405.

Piaget, J. (1923). La pensée symbolique et le pensée de l’enfant [Symbolic thought and the thought of the child]. Archives de Psychologie, 18, 273–304.

Pierce, C. S. (1932). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 2, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.). Harvard University Press.