Category: Processing Smarts

May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor – Erik Kondo

As someone who has a deep interest in conflict management and self-defense, the subject invariably comes up in many of my  conversations.

I bump into people on a regular basis who also show an interest in personal safety.  They indicate their interest by stating that they:

  1. Carry some type of weapon.
  2. Took a martial art at some point in their lives.
  3. Are very aware of their surroundings
  4. Know how to read people.
  5. Took a self-defense class.

I agree that these are all very important aspects of self-protection. So we have a common interest.

But that where our common interest ends. Because they tell me that they are “good” at where they are at. They don’t need or want anything more. They have no interest in further education and training on the subject. They are all set.

It’s not that they don’t want anything from me. They don’t want anything from anybody else either. Why? Because they don’t need it for the reasons stated above.

They recognize the importance of personal safety. But they feel that they have achieved a high enough level of competency, such that further improvement on the subject is not needed.

Mind you, this is a different belief than those who feel no need to be concerned about personal safety. That is another Ball of Wax. For instance, if you carry a weapon, then it is safe to assume that you have a significant concern about your personal safety.

The people that make these statements are not dumb. They are smart and capable people. And in their judgement, they are competent in the realm of personal safety.

Rather than focusing on them, I am more curious about the origin their beliefs. How do people whose very statements display a lack of knowledge of the complexities of violence and self-defense come to believe in their own competency? What is the basis for their belief?

These are intelligent people.  But what metric do they judge their competency against? How do they evaluate their skills?

For example, if you carry a gun and have taken single firearms training course, what forces have conspired to lead you to believe that you have now reached personal safety competence? The same goes for carrying a knife, having taken a self-defense class, or achieving some martial art ranking.

In my opinion, these people have been duped by the self-defense industry in particular, and by society in general. In their desire to market their self-defense products, many in the self-defense industry make grandiose claims of how easy it is to protect yourself once you take X class or buy Y product.

This same industry tells you that the others who don’t do X or buy Y are merely helpless Sheep. While simultaneously convincing you that you are worthy of the Sheep Dog designation. It’s those other people are the unaware and fearful masses. But not you. You are good to go.

My response to that is:

REALLY?

Do they really have any idea about the cluster f— of human complications that surrounds incidents of violence and self-defense, particularly when a weapon is involved?

Yes, a weapon is a force multiplier. It is also a bad judgement multiplier. It makes it easier for you to injure or kill someone by your error of judgment and/or lack of skill. It makes it easier for you to go directly to jail and not collect $200 as you pass GO. And it will take more than the loss of a few turns to get out.

And it’s not their fault! Their belief in the infallibility of their weapon, their training, or their martial art didn’t originate from them.

They were feed a seed. It was implanted in their head. And now it has grown to a full sized unshakable belief.

They went shopping for a solution for Danger Management, but were sold a solution for Fear Management. They were provided with a product that solved their Fear problem. Fear exists in your head. But danger exists in the environment.  But now that their Fear problem has been solved in their heads, they are not concerned with real Danger in their environment.

And as a practical matter, the odds are that it will not matter. Statistically, unless they live in certain areas or engage in certain activities, they are unlikely to have the need to defend themselves in the manner that they think they can.

It’s like they are playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with an unimaginably enormous barrel. A barrel so big they can’t even count the many chambers for the bullets. And all the chambers are empty, but one.

For most people this modified game is Russian Roulette will work out fine. But given the Law of Large Numbers, there are a few that will make an unfortunately spin and their belief in their self-defense competency will be shattered like a dropped wine glass on concrete.

May the odds be ever in their favor.

The Hand of SD Expanded: The Palm, Part I – Marc MacYoung

Pay attention to what a guy — who’s been through the shit — emphasizes first. As such issues seem incredibly small, insignificant or a ‘I know how to do that’ type topic, you’ll often have a reaction of ‘why’s that important?’ The answer is “That’s what kept him alive when bullets were in the air.” Odds are he’s seen people die because they overlooked those details. This, in contrast with someone who is coming from an academic or training only background. Their emphasis tends to be on the obvious — and by extension something that will get you killed if you exclusively focus on it instead of details that support it or can undermine it.

The Hand of SD Expanded
 The Palm (Part One)

In my last two part article I introduced the “Hand of Self-Defense.”  In the first part I pointed out the disconnect between what happens before, during, and after violence versus what is being ‘taught as self-defense.’ I argued this disconnect will either get you (or your students) hospitalized, dead or in prison. That’s not hyperbole. Entirely too much training overly focuses on one aspect (usually physical) and ignores everything else involved. Which would not be a problem except how often this training is touted as ‘all you need.’

Yeah, about that…

I grew up with violence, violence was my profession, I’ve trained for it, I’ve also studied academic works on the subject, and now I deal with court cases involving violence. Each of these five approaches assesses and understands violence in their own unique ways. More importantly, they prioritize different aspects — for good reasons. But these reasons often aren’t apparent until you view the subject from that standpoint. This varied experience gives me perspectives on violence than most so-called ‘self-defense instructors’ do not have. Basically, I look at a much bigger picture. A picture of overlapping filters and extended depth of field. I’ve seen problems about self-defense that most people don’t know exist until they find themselves too far in to back out.

That’s why I came up with the Hand. Each of the fingers is an important element (or group of topics) that seriously influence … well everything. The hand can help you with if violence even occurs. It helps you tell what is happening. What degree of force you need. How to scale force at the time and afterwards, how to communicate that it was self-defense.  How not get nailed by the common pitfalls of dealing with the cops, our legal system and of course — for real fun and games — how not to get killed if the guy comes back seeking vengeance. These are realities of violence that most instructors not only don’t touch upon, but often don’t even know exist.  Or worse, they heard of the subjects but have dismissed them as trivial and/or a ‘well that won’t happen.’

Which brings us to the second part of the original “Hand of SD” article. There I address things that have to be in one’s training for self-defense.  Otherwise, it’s NOT self-defense training. (That’s why understanding the disconnect is important.)  Even if what’s being taught is somehow connected, it’s often a single aspect; it’s not the whole of the subject of self-defense. But there’s something else. In violence things can — and do — go wrong. The self-defense hand introduces you to where this can happen and the skills necessary to be able to manage where things commonly go wrong and when they do. It is a map, a check list,  and a litmus test of your training, knowledge and skills. It’s to see if your training prepares you  to handle how things actually happen and go wrong.

So fast recap. Hold up your hand.

  • Your palm is who is being taught, what their needs, skills/knowledge and limits are
  • Your thumb is communication, articulation and –if you will — people skills
  • Your index finger is knowledge of how violence happens, social dynamics and etiquette
  • Your middle finger is physical skills — including doing them while adrenalized.
  • Your ring finger is situational knowledge, threat assessment, pattern recognition and ability to scale force appropriate to the situation
  • Your pinky is knowing how to deal with the cops, courts, when to shut up, when to lawyer up and — of course — dealing with vendetta.

    So let’s start with the palm of “Who is being taught.”

In the original article I introduced the Palm as: There is no one-size-fits-all or one-stop-shopping when it comes to self-defense training. The needs of an older woman are different than that of a young man who is being bullied at school.

 You know what? What I teach police SWAT teams is completely different than what I teach soccer moms. What I teach nurses (who often walk into dark parking lots late at night), social workers and real estate agents is different than office workers. What I teach bouncers is different than what I teach business travelers. What I teach regular police officers is different than what I teach military personnel. Why? Because each group has different rules of engagement, different problems, different responsibilities and most of all are facing completely different situations.

But more than that, individuals from each group have completely different resources, backgrounds, attitudes, abilities, experiences, physical capabilities, and most of all, limits.

What I just said is: You have both external and internal factors that influence if  ‘the’ training will work. Although I speak of the Palm, think of those two as the back of the hand (external) and the palm (internal). In many ways external and internal issues are horribly intertwined. At the same time they are still separate issues. Issues that if you don’t look at individually the results become as clear as mud. In fact, a very good argument can be made that the disconnect of training has its roots in not looking at theses issues as if they were all one in the same.

Looking at this part of the hand makes you consider if the training is appropriate. Appropriate for not just different needs, different circumstances, different rules of engagement, different environments, but most importantly appropriate for the students themselves. What they are or not capable of — and often won’t be, regardless any amount of training.

What works for one individual is not only no, but a hell no for another.  For example: Teaching a five foot one woman muay Thai so she can fight against a fit and aggressive 250 pound man is setting her up to not just fail, but literally to get run over and squished. This is not a question of ‘does muay Thai work?’ (External.) It’s you don’t teach a smaller, weaker woman (internal) to fight a bigger person using a sports fighting system. When it comes to ‘self-defense,’ you teach her how to injure and escape from a bigger attacker.

Why? Because, especially in sports fighting ‘styles,’ size matters. Let me repeat that in case you missed it, SIZE MATTERS! It especially matters when everyone is using the same techniques (which is the essence of sports fighting). “Size matters” is why — even among male fighters — there’s weight divisions. (There’s a story out there about a famous female kickboxing champ who hauled off and kicked a guy on the side of the road. He grunted and said, “Good one. You better leave.”) What also matters in sports fighting systems is physical fitness. Teaching women a young man’s game — that most of its effectiveness comes from good physical condition and strength — is ignoring the fact most people can’t run a mile, much less fight effectively for three minutes. It would take months of training to get to that bare minimum physical standard.

But more than that, you’re going to have a hell of a time convincing women they can go skull-to-skull with a man. You may think you can teach someone how — and there are women who will believe it —  but most women won’t trust that idea. If they don’t buy it in training, they certainly won’t use it in a situation. (Stop and think about this. If sports fighting is where you get your physical techniques for your Women’s Self-Defense class, A) You’re shooting your credibility in the foot and B) That’s probably a contributing factor as to why such classes are hard to fill up.) You may think these limits can be overcome with training, but does the student? This especially with the amount of time and effort the person is willing to invest.

Changing tracks for a second. What are the actual dangers and circumstances the people in the class are facing? Given their lifestyle choices, what dangers are real? Then the big question: Is the information you’re providing germane to those circumstances?

A young middle class male in high school might have to ‘fight’ a bully. But are those the same problems a young man from a gang infested inner city school will face? Will teaching both of those teens the same fighting style be appropriate? I ask because in the inner city, weapons and superior numbers are far more common than suburbia.

What does a young woman going off to college need to know as opposed to a married mother of two teens? Will the circumstances each face be the same? Probably not — unless ‘mom’ is into frat parties and binge drinking. What does a business traveler — of either sex –need to know to travel safely through different cities  or even countries? Starting with the ‘basics’ of hotel bars and how not to get hit on while there. Does a homeowner who has a gun for home defense need the same training as a SWAT team? Definitely not. Starting with the fact that a home owner is under no obligation to search/storm the property.  I tell you this so you can see how much situations dictate the nature of the problem, the needs and what is  appropriate training.

Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them — Albert Einstein

 

Trigger Types: Confirmation, Opportunity and Necessity – Schalk Holloway

We can set our triggers in two broad categories – proactive and reactive. Proactive is when we still have initiative. Reactive is when the aggressor has initiative. Confirmation Triggers fall into a proactive sphere. Opportunity Triggers and Necessity Triggers fall into a reactive sphere. When we are proactive we are acting. When we are reactive we are reacting. Meaning, when I notice a potential threat, I can flag him, decide or select certain triggers, and when I see them I act. Reactive means I have missed that evaluation process and I am now left responding to the confirmed threat’s initiative.

For example. Proactive is when I flag a pair of potential muggers before they attack. I can now set “if one of them pulls a knife I will do this” or “if one of them demands something from me” as a signal, trigger and response. A Confirmation Trigger was used. If I miss flagging the potential muggers and they jump me with a knife against my throat I have to kick into reactive mode. I can still run an IF THEN clause but now I will need to set Opportunity or Necessity Triggers. In terms of Opportunity it can be something like “if knife guy looks away I will do this.” In terms of Necessity it can be something like “if his buddy says kill him then I will do this.”

This breakdown of Confirmation, Opportunity and Necessity Triggers serves as a great training tool. It helps the learner to understand different tactics as well as wisdom in terms of when to deploy certain types of techniques. It also serves as an easy way to categorize the triggers into more memorable subsets.

Negative Influence Factors
All though there are others I am going to list the main negative influence factors in executing this Just Right Response.

1. Emotional State
If I can use an analogy that is still very active in our industry, this question has to do with whether the defender is functioning with his human (cognitive), monkey (emotional) or lizard (survival) brain. The decision making processes and goals differ in all three of these states. They form a linear line with human on the one side and lizard on the other. By implication, the more you go to the one side the less in control the other side is. Your emotional state thus influences your ability to make certain types of decisions.

The primary emotions we deal with in confrontations are fear and indignation or anger. The more scared or angry you get the more difficult it becomes to make good decisions. The problem with this is that the moment you become emotionally led you don’t always notice it. You think you are functioning normally but seldomly are. I’m not speaking about becoming or trying to be completely unemotional. It is normal, healthy, and can be beneficial for you to experience certain emotional and physiological changes under these conditions – I am talking about the fine line where you move from experiencing them to becoming led by them.

Going back to our thinking on a Just Right Response is becomes glaringly obvious that your emotional state can seriously influence this. If the emotions of fear or anger take over you might respond in any one of these: Too fast, too late, with too much force or with too little. Remember you observe and interpret data differently when emotional, you orient yourself differently to incoming data as well, so any decision you make is based on possibly faulty data. If your freeze response kicks in you might respond too late and with no force. If your fight response kicks in you possibly respond too fast and with too much force. The idea is to try and remain in control until it’s necessary or wise not to do so any more.

2. Accurate Mental Models
All of us store models of what threat signals look like in our subconscious. Your foundational models are based on simplistic data sets – an object travelling at your head really fast or a sudden shadow moving into your line of sight or a really loud bang. The reality however is that criminal attacks, depending on the type of criminal or attack, can send out very complex or minute signals that they are a threat. Also, the effective criminal works hard at actually hiding these already complex or minute signals. Understanding what valid threat signals LOOK or SOUND or FEEL or SMELL like is key to setting up a Just Right Response.

This is difficult without much experience and/or good training. The problem with much experience is the obvious and inherent dangers involved. Yes, we can learn first hand about the signals, the twitch we missed, the change in face colouration we missed, the slight shift in stance we missed, the hand ducking behind the back or into a pocket that we missed, the momentary change in his eyes and where they’re focusing, we can learn from these but we’re not guaranteed to walk away in one piece.

The problem with training is twofold. First of all it’s just whether you are training with these signals integrated or not in the first place – and whether you are being encouraged to explore, set and practice your triggers. Second of all it’s whether it’s being done in a realistic manner. Remember, you won’t just be dealing with the physical signals, but also with things like emotional state, presence, projection of power and intimidation, all of these change your brain’s ability to deal with the situation effectively as it provides more incoming data albeit at a more subconscious level.

3. Data Overload
Data overload can be approached from two different angles – time constraints and volume. Both of them create an overload effect. The first creates it due to the fact that your brain does not have enough time to deal with all of the incoming signals. The second creates it due to pure volume. There is simply too much happening at once for your brain to deal with it effectively.

Data overload is one of the key motivators for hammering effective situational awareness and range skills into our students. If you are able to pick up the development of a situation in a timely manner then you will have, by definition, more time to evaluate the incoming signals accurately. If you ingrain the simple, but not always so easy, habit of maintaining certain ranges from potential threats you immediately buffer your abilities substantially. The shorter the range the less time you have to evaluate and make decisions. The shorter the range the less you can see and less data you available to accurately evaluate and make decisions.

Training Tips
Signal and Trigger Discussions
Most of self defense training is geared towards the response side of this process. Consider stopping your class every now and again asking them about signals – and then about their individual triggers. Keep it short, maybe a minute or two. This will also help you pick up whether they actually have a good knowledge base of signals and a good idea of what would be good triggers for them as individuals.

Pick a Number
When doing striking combinations or pad work let the students pick a number between one and five. Let them pull of the combo when they hear that number. Then with variations in tempo, rhythm and volume count from one to five. The idea is that they only strike when they hear their number – and do so fast and effectively. Change it randomly switching over to the alphabet or different number strings.

Scenario Training
Include full blown scenario training into your classes. Teach your students how to realistically model certain signals when they are playing the role of the aggressor. Also, consider getting involved every now and again. Unexpected jump in on a scenario and really amp up the pressure. Or do something new. This will cause them to go either into an unplanned emotional or data overload state – or trip up their existing mental models.

*These are concepts and models that we, as in our training community, frequently use. This is the first time that I have attempted to pen them down upon Gary’s request. If any of the readers have any input or relevant research to share it would be much appreciated.

Dynamic Decision Making Process – Schalk Holloway

“So when do I actually hit him?”

This is a question I frequently get in training environments or events we host. The reason for this is that all of our training includes a situational, or scenario, component. We role play different types of situations more prevalent within our context. We then teach our “aggressors” how to escalate the situation they’re role playing realistically. This however always leads to someone wondering at which point they should now react. This sounds easier than it actually is. Due to the inherent dynamism in potentially violent encounters, or even in verbal confrontations and conflicts, it is difficult to have catch all answer to this problem. In retrospect we can say that then or there was the perfect time to react. Whilst there it’s not always so clear. Also, if we think about training, our role as provider is to help others to think right, we need to teach them to evaluate for themselves when they should react.

This article will help you to explore, and hopefully better equip you to train yourself and others on, some the dynamics involved in preparing yourself to respond effectively in developing situations. It is going to do so through helping you to understand the importance of being able to make decisions dynamically as a situation develops. It will also delve into some of the challenges this progressive decision making faces and give you some tips on how to train it.

Just Right Decisions – Timing and Force

In self defense specifically, as in boundary enforcement (Just Right Boundary Enforcement, Erik Kondo), there is what we would call a Just Right Response. Just right specifically in terms of the timing of the response as well as the amount of force used in the response.

In terms of timing it’s easy to understand that responding either too early or too late can have negative consequences. If I respond too early I lose my ability to legally justify the response because it essentially means that I responded before there was a valid Confirmed Threat Indicator (as opposed to only a Potential Threat Indicator). If I respond too late it means that I have just lost initiative. I’ve now been forced into a reactive pattern. There are quite a few negative consequences here. First of all, we are much less effective when we are responding as our decision making ability is greatly hampered by all of the incoming data. Second, losing initiative means that I now stand the chance of being injured first, which could lead to serious complications and even death.

In terms of the amount of force that we use there’s also a just right decision that needs to made. Using too little force could mean that my response is ineffectual. This has a couple of negative consequences of which I’ll highlight two. First, there’s a psychological factor involved for both parties. I know I responded ineffectual and this could hamper my confidence going forward. He knows it too and this could fuel his confidence. Secondly, when we think about the physical side of a confrontation, too little force could once again bring us back to being injured and all of the bad stuff included there. Using too much force we now get faced with both the emotional and legal fallout that will follow. From experience I always tell others, whether you hurt somebody for good, whether you hurt them for bad, whether you used just enough or too much force, at some stage it comes back to haunt you. You never want to be the guy that puts his head down at night and wonders whether you were justified in severely hurting or killing another human being. If you can’t answer that question with a good conscience you have some problems on the way.

So our goal is to find a Just Right Response. Under extremely dynamic situations. This is what Progressive Decision Making Ability is about. It’s about training the ability to make those decisions effectively under pressure.

Progressive Decision Making

Progressive decision making is the discipline and art of arranging signals and triggers to support us in making Just Right Responses.

We arrange Signals, Threats and Responses like this. The Signals are all the indicators that a person or persons (or situation) is a potential or a confirmed threat. A Trigger is the imaginary line in the sand. It is the moment at which I feel I now have to respond. The Response is the action that I take when triggered. A Response can be Too Much or Too Little, Too Soon or Too Late, as already discussed. The goal though is to be able to pick up on signals, select or have pre selected triggers in place, so that we can set up a Just Right Response.

Without spending too much time Boyd’s OODA loop model, one large take-away is the fact that decision precedes action. When we are able to make a specific decision about something we set ourselves up to take action more in line with our preferred outcome. Our Triggers are these decisions because essentially that’s what a line in the sand is. A visual or conceptual representation of a decision. Procrastination is not the lack of action – it’s the lack of deciding to act. In self defense, or in most types of confrontation or conflict, procrastination frequently leads to timing related consequences. For now it’s important to understand that I need to make decisions when in a hostile encounter. The decisions are mostly IF THEN clauses. IF person or persons A does this THEN I do that.

Progressive Decision Making is the ability to make those decisions as the incoming data develops.

For example. I’m sitting in a pub having a beer. A guy comes in through the door. His demeanor is subtly aggressive. I make a decision (trigger) that “if he gets really loud, demanding or confrontational with anyone (signals) I’m flagging him as a potential threat (response)”. He orders a beer and starts talking to another guy next to him at the bar. He systematically gets louder and more confrontational. I now flag him as a potential threat. Due to many factors however he’s not really a potential threat to me. However, I make the decision (trigger) that “if he comes over and starts talking with me (signal) I will flag him as a potential threat to me (response).” Low and behold, he catches my eye and over he comes. I converse with him congenially but I make a decision (trigger) that (for example) “if he gets argumentative (signal) I’ll excuse myself and leave (response).” Surely he does become argumentative and I congenially excuse myself and get ready to leave. I make two last decisions (triggers), one, “if he insults me I will continue to leave,” but two, “if he touches me I will hit him so hard that his head will smack the floor before his feet lift from it.”

This is a process that most of us go through without being aware that we are doing so. The challenge however is that if you are not experienced or trained in these matters you either miss the signals or you don’t set the triggers. Failure in either of these leads to inadequate responses.

Relativistic Nature of of Triggers

It is important to understand that there are some factors that should influence the selection of triggers. These factors are based on physical attributes, training and experience background, and situational development.

First of all remember, signals are what the other party is displaying, triggers are your own personal lines in the sand.

1.  Physical Attributes

My wife has been struggling with one of her knees for a couple of years now. She struggles to run fast as she experiences a lot of pain. This means, that any response that is geared towards escaping or leaving an area fast, will be problematic for her. This isn’t necessarily a crisis – it just means that her trigger or her line in the sand needs to be a bit further away from the critical incident than, say, mine has to be.

For example, both of us are in a shopping centre, we pick up aggressive and demanding signals from a guy at one of the fast food outlets’ paypoints. There are some other signals as well. Aggressive guy is dressed anomalous, it’s warm weather but he has a jacket on. The cashier is glancing at his waist the whole time looking nervous. We cannot see if he’s holding something there and we cannot hear what’s happening. It could be a robbery or it could be an argument over a till slip he’s holding. The signals are the same for both of us. However, a trigger for me might be “if I see him pull a gun I’m out of here.” A trigger for her might be further from such a critical incident. It might be “if he starts yelling or someone screams I’m out of here.”

In this way your physical attributes like strength, athleticism, ease of communication, fitness and so forth might influence your own personal triggers.

2. Training and Experience

Let’s imagine that we’re in a situation that, if it evolves into a full blown physical encounter, it will remain within the sphere of hand to hand combat. Ie. No chance of weapons. I’m standing at the bar ordering a drink. All of a sudden the guy next to me looks towards me and shouts “hey man, what’s your problem?” I did not do anything to him. I didn’t touch him, bump him, look at him, spill my drink on him, engage with anyone in his party in any way. So as far as I’m concerned the signals he’s giving off is that he’s looking for a fight.

I attempt to de-escalate the situation verbally. Whilst doing so I start to make my IF THEN decisions. I set my triggers. Here’s the problem though. Let’s imagine I’m 5’6” and he’s about 6’6”. If I have no relevant training I might decide “if he shifts his stance to face me I’m out of here.” If I have some training I might use the same trigger but respond “then I’m going to punch him.” If I’m really well trained and experienced my response can be “then I’m subtly going to match his footwork, set up the range so it works in my favor, get my hands into a good position, start to pick the best attack vector, and continue to try and de-escalate.”

Training and experience essentially allows us to come closer to the critical incident before we act. It also gives us more options in terms of how we can act. Training and experience, in legal expectations as well as in my own personal opinion, also leave us with the responsibility to attempt to have a more positive impact in a peaceful resolution to the situation.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

This is the dynamic of how close or far we, as an individual, HAVE TO or EXPERIENCE WE HAVE TO set our triggers to the actual critical incident. It is easier and less complex to set up triggers and responses very far from the critical incident. Certain individuals though, either through choice, sense of responsibility, or employment expectations, are required to get really really close, even INTO, the critical incident. Think predators, law enforcement, military, security professional, certain bystanders, paramedic and so forth.

In all three of these subcategories it becomes clear that triggers are sometimes very subjective by nature.

The Self-Defense Hand: Part III – Marc MacYoung

PART I

PART II

Your ring finger is In-the-field threat assessment, environmental knowledge, awareness, and your ability to scale force.

Notice I didn’t use the term ‘situational awareness.’  That’s because it’s one of the most misunderstood and abused terms in this business. It’s also the biggest handwaves in teaching self-defense. By that I mean, “Oh yeah we teach it, now let’s spend the next three hours teaching how to break someone’s neck.” Remember how I said there’s a problem about not knowing what self-defense is? It just came home to roost starting with not knowing when there’s danger around.

I have a saying: You can’t spot abnormal until you know what normal is. You can’t spot dangerous until can tell the difference between it and abnormal.  

Simple saying, profound implications — especially when it comes to keeping you from bleeding out on the sidewalk. I tell you this because if you can’t even recognize normal you won’t be able to see dangerous slithering up towards you.

Five points about this normal/abnormal/dangerous idea.

One, most of the time there is no immediate danger in an environment.  So constant tacti-kool/ninja awareness isn’t necessary. Being able to see what ‘normal’ (hence not-dangerous) for an environment reveals the lack of danger. This may not sound like much, but it is a critical element of long term survival and preventing burn out. (It is however, beyond the scope of this already too long article.)  

Two, normal changes from place to place and at different times. (You need to be able to read these changes — for example, when the families with children leave, the chances of trouble go up.)

Three, there is a difference between weird and dangerous. A guy riding a unicycle, playing bagpipes and wearing a kilt is weird, but it’s not dangerous. Even without taking things that far, there are situations that are abnormal for an environment, but not dangerous. In fact, there are some pretty standard variations of abnormal. To the point they become normal-abnormal — such as how a stranger approaches to legitimately ask for something in a parking lot.  

Four, there are certain ‘clusters of behaviors’ that indicate when danger is present. (Yes, they predictably show up together; if you’ve done your homework in index-finger-land you’ll know what they are.) When you see them danger is developing.

Five, the greatest danger comes hidden behind seemingly ‘innocent, but normal-abnormal social scripts,’ except their not. They’re abnormal and obvious, but with an extra set of behaviors that make them dangerous. Hiding danger these behaviors present both a flawed imitation and violate normal social boundaries. They have to in order to make the previously mentioned clusters work.

 For example a stranger walking right up to you while pretending to be asking for directions — instead of stopping at a safe distance. This is why it is important to know normal, abnormal and dangerous. Normal is strangers don’t talk to you in parking lots. Abnormal is someone tries to. Normal-abnormal is that person stops about fifteen feet away, assumes a non-threatening body posture with hands clearly displayed while speaking. Dangerous is him talking covers the fact he’s closing the distance and his hand is out of your sight.  This parking lot robbery scenario is easy to figure out. Do this kind of break down of normal, abnormal and normal-abnormal in all the areas you regularly frequent. Then watch for anyone attempting to develop those circumstances on you. Normal, abnormal and dangerous are far more nuts-and-bolts practical standards than what people who use the term ‘situational awareness’ usually mean.

Taking this out of exclusively crime, let’s talk about recognizing when you’re in a potentially violent situation. How can your behaviors influence if it goes violent or not? Have you looked into that subject? (Hint, the answers are on the first two fingers.) If it does go physical:  How much force is appropriate given the circumstances?  Not every situation is a life or death struggle. Have you looked into scaling and controlling your level of force? If you don’t know that, and don’t know how to tell which ones aren’t and which one are, then you’re in trouble. You’re either going to over or under react. Either is bad; that’s why it’s important to be able to understand scaling your force before you’re called on to do it. The ring finger is where you have to apply it under pressure. Of course it also helps if you have the physical ability to do so (see the middle finger).

The pinky finger is legal, dealing with cops, courts and vendettas.

Want to know the difference between training for self-defense and actually doing it? When you do it, you’ll have to answer for it.

Remember how I said self-defense is legal, but most violence isn’t? Yeah here’s a real simple rule of thumb, the cops tend to arrest the winner of a fight. Why? In these days of mandatory arrest, somebody has to go to jail. Generally speaking when it comes to a ‘fight,’ you have Asshole #1 and Asshole #2. The winner is usually the bigger asshole. The loser is punished by pain. The winner is punished by arrest.

The second self-defense situation you’re going to find yourself is convincing the authorities you weren’t the bigger asshole. This is harder than you might think because after SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It), the most common dodge for illegal violence is claiming ‘self-defense.’ Now the really bad news, cops are really good at tripping up people who try this dodge. Unfortunately, it also means they’re really good at tripping people up who did act in self-defense.

Here’s a hint, your ability to talk-your-way-out-of-a-situation (thumb) also serves to articulate why people skills weren’t working, your knowledge of how crime and violence happens (index finger) helped you assess the danger, what  physical skills you used (middle finger), your awareness (ring finger) let you see it in time, try to avoid it and when that failed, allowed you to make a reasonable decision on the degree of force. All of those will go into what you have to tell the cops when you claim self-defense.

Sound like a lot of stuff to know? Well, if they don’t like your answer, you’re going down. Now the really bad news. It’s not going to be the officer-you’re-talking-to’s decision to arrest you, usually the order comes from above. Often it’s been decided by someone who isn’t even there. (While they were talking to you they made a phone call.) The officer talking to you might believe you. But, if that word comes down, he has no choice. Those questions you’ve been answering were to build a case against you. If that happens, then the only hope you have is that all those things you said in your statement can be used by your attorney to beat the charges.  If you don’t want to spend time in prison you have to know how to play this game — including knowing when to shut up and get your lawyer there.  

By the way, in case you think I just said shut up and lawyer up, no. You can’t. If you claim self-defense you have to make a statement, then it becomes a matter of when and what your lawyer will allow you to answer. (There are certain trick questions that if you answer, it will be deemed as an admission of guilt and the green light for an arrest — your lawyer knows how to spot them.) Then there are things that you have to get into your statement (like your threat assessment model).

Here’s an important idea. Take the tip of your thumb and pinky and put them together. Remember how the thumb represents people skills and communication? If you also remember there is a tag on there, articulation. That’s the finger press. When you make a statement regarding your self-defense, you will be interrogated. And yes, interrogated is the right term. One of the best ways to trip someone up during interrogation is coming at you with other possibilities. It’s not enough to be able to say ‘it was this.’ You have to be able to explain how you knew it wasn’t something else. This is critical because — if you remember– the set ups for high levels of violence (e.g., robberies) are commonly hidden under normal social scripts. For example, you’ll have to be able to answer, “No, he was pretending to ask for directions. If he was, he would have done A,B and C, instead 1,2, and 3 happened.” You won’t be able to do that if you don’t know what normal behavior is. This is another reason why people skills are important. They can keep you out of prison.

You may not want to believe it, but prison can be the warm fuzzy side of the aftermath of violence. The other version is the person you had to defend yourself against, waiting in the shadows with a shotgun for you to come home. Yeah, funzies. Welcome to the land of vendetta.

Equally bad news is if the guy you had to defend yourself against was the member of a criminal organization or violent family.  There are a lot of lowlifes out there who do not have a strong support network, so if you drop them, there won’t be a vendetta. Oh sure they’ll make noise about it (especially as they’re limping away), but will anything come of it? Usually no. This ‘woofing’ is a face saving retreat. Still there will be enough times that the guy backs up on you to warrant extra precautions for the next few weeks. You know all that uber macho codes and tactical awareness that wannabe gunslingers like to say you should be at all the time? Yeah, if you have a vendetta against you, you’re going to need that…

At the same time, there are also violent groups who will come looking for you for hurting a member or affiliate.  And oh yeah, just so you know, they aren’t above shooting at you when you’re with your family. Having said that, if you’ve pissed off some next-level-folks, nothing short of running off to another state (or province) and changing your lifestyle will be enough. Yes, it can get that bad.

I came up with this Hand of Self-Defense mnemonic to help you prevent the kinds of catastrophic failures that normally happen when people try to actually use their self-defense training. Last time I talked about a wing coming off a plane in mid-flight. That’s not a bad analogy on the degree of how things can go wrong. And how if you don’t know where to look you won’t see the potential problem until it’s too late. Self-defense is a lot more complicated than people think. The hand will both help you organize important information, but help you from doing the common mistakes people make when it comes to self-defense. But that’s not the only reason I came up with it.

 It’s a diagnostic tool for your training. Come back to it now and then and see what aspects you’ve either been ignoring or overly focusing on. While self-defense is itself a balancing act, now you have a way to maintain that balance, both in your training and out in the streets.  A balance – that if you’re forced to defend yourself —  can keep you out of the morgue, hospital, prison or the poor house.

 

Checkmate! – Clint Overland

When I was a kid and I know this may confuse some of
the younger readers, I didn’t have cable T.V., internet, or computer
games. We had a T.V. that on a good day we could receive 4 channels
and most of the time just 3. Winter was rough because there were many
days that going outside was not an option. The area I grew up in
didn’t receive a lot of snow but we would have long cold spells with
high winds and no sun. So to keep us entertained my father taught us a
lot of different games but one of my favorites was chess.

I watchedhim and my uncle’s play and loved the way they would spend the time
between move busting each-others chops with one liners and jokes. So I
asked my dad to teach me how to play. He said yes and thus began a
lifelong friendship with the game. He showed me each piece and told me
where they went and how they moved. For the first few months I just
tried to survive each game for more than a few moves. Time passed and
I got a little better and after a while I could stay in the game
longer and longer and I still remember the first time I said that
magic word, Checkmate!

If you look at chess and then look at conflict of any
sort you can see the comparison. After the first move of each player
there are over four hundred possible board positions, after each
player moves again there are something like 197,742 or so. And after
that it just spirals in a mass of confusion and anarchy. Now most
games last somewhere around 40 moves depending on the experience of
the player. Sometime more sometime less. I spent a lot of time getting
mad because I was getting beat in 4 to 5 moves but as I learned the
game I began to last longer and longer. What I wanted to chow you was
that chess is a lot like a conflict between two people, be it an
argument between a married couple to a bar fight. Conflict is conflict
it just varies in degrees of violence and actions.

When a conflict happens it begins with an opening
move. Let’s take an argument between a young married couple. I know in
my first marriage I thought I had to win each fight if I wanted to be
the man of the house. Ha, freaking Ha! What this cause was a tons of
headaches and hard feelings, and finally a nasty divorce.

What I didn’t know was I could say I am sorry and I am wrong and not mean it.
I had a choice I could be right or I could be happy, not always both
at the same time. Now as I have grown older and just a little wiser, I
will apologize first and listen actively as the list of my sins are
read to me. I apologize and move on to a more peaceful time. Why you
asked? Because I play 3 moves ahead due to experience and can see the
outcome is not worth the effort of continuing the argument. I win by
giving in and moving to another game.

Now let’s take this to another level. I am sitting in
a bar and a man I have had problems with has drank enough liquid
courage to step up and try and start a fight. Again here is the
analogy between chess and conflict. He just make an opening move by
letting his ego overrule his better judgement. Now, I don’t know that
he has chosen to make his move, but as he approaches me I will see that
he has.

He comes to me and begins to inform me of what a piece of crap
I am and how he is going to do whatever comes to his drug filled mind.
Now I have a choice of moves. I can throat chop him, reach out and
break his leg, bust a bottle across his chops, or I can call for the
bouncer and let the guy getting paid for it to deal with the
situation. Again, I need to every choice. Do I choose to risk going to
jail or face a lawsuit? Do I let professionals handle it and take the
burden off myself? These are thing I need to decide in a split
instant.

Now each one of these decisions have an outcome that can
work for me or against me. If I do take matters into my own hand and
bang on him, is he going to react the way I want him too? (I had a
young kid one night hit me with a right left right left combo and I
leaned down to tell him to go home, he ran away. Another night I
kicked a guy in the nuts and he smiled at me. (I knew life was going
to suck for a while.)

Same as with chess is a person going to do what
I want him to do as a reaction to my moves. Is he playing 5 moves
ahead to my 3, what’s going to happen if I do A and he responds with a
E instead of a B move. These are things that you need to be able to
deal with and adapt to as the situation progresses. Every conflict
situation you encounter will be this way. If I attack his foundation
will he fall or will he change tactics and attack with a tool or
reposition himself so that my attack will have to change. This is one
of the reasons I teach that there is no one sure fire 100% guaranteed
system or move that will end the situation in your favor short of
destroying the brain function completely and that in itself leads to a
whole new set of problems.

Again as in chess you may not be playing just one
person. With chess people study the moves of the ones that have played
more than them. They learn what moves to make in response to
situations and what not to do. With a conflict situation you may be at
odds with someone that isn’t alone or has been in more of fights than
you have and knows what to do and when to do it, they may also know
just how much that they can take and that in itself is a game changer.

Chess is a great analogy to conflict management in that it is always
changing, and moving, never static and never a given that you will
win. You must remain as fluid as the situation demands. If you need to
apologize to walk away intact then that is what you do. If you need to
throat chop one guy, and then rip another’s eye out to get away safely,
then that is what you do. But as with chess you need to be a student
of the game to play it wisely.

 

Fighting Godzilla – Kevin O’Hagan

‘I am going to play devil’s advocate in this following article and hopefully give you some food for thought.’

I watch with mild amusement but also a fair amount of worry at many of the clips on social media of today’s so called ‘reality combat systems.’

When it comes to self defence techniques the majority of these systems have only one answer to an attack and that is to respond by totally annihilating their attacker and leaving them in a ‘gooey’ pile on the ground.

No matter what form of attack they face. Whether it is a wrist grab, shirt tug, headlock, punch or knife it will all end with the same response…beat the fucking living daylights out of the bastard. Gouge their eyes out, rupture their spleen, splatter their balls into mush and then collapse their windpipe and finish by battering their cerebellum until they drop to the floor a twitching, dribbling wreck!

Now many of these systems were developed as close quarter combat for the military to use in times of war. When they didn’t have a weapon available the last resort was to go hand to hand. It was literally kill or be killed! Extreme circumstances call of extreme responses.

The question is should these techniques be taught to the general public? Should they also be taught as self defence?

Every country has its laws and many vary but when it comes to self defence most are near enough the same.

Marc McYoung in his excellent book, In the name of self defence makes the important observation that self defence is a crime. Yes read that again. If you are pleading self defence you have got to justify your actions and prove it wasn’t a crime.

Everybody is answerable to the law of the land unless you are a criminal.

Military, Police, security and the general public are all answerable for their actions and the amount of force they use. There are no exceptions. Different circumstances certainly, but no exceptions.

Professionals that deal with violence understand about force continuum. This is a scale of force they work to depending on the threat level they are faced with.

Police for instant do not C.S gas and baton every person they encounter breaking a law. They will decide whether to use a verbal command or a physical action from control and restraint, cuffing, gassing or baton depending on the circumstances.

It has all go to be justified and answerable to a higher order.

But what about then the general public that might never have engaged in physical conflict?

Surely they would know nothing of force continuum?

They are not professionals?

True. But we are not just talking about an average member of the general public. We are talking about trained Martial artists in this instance.

These people are presumably trained to fight. If you spend a great deal of your time learning how to inflict pain and hurt on another human being then surely you should also know about the law and self defence and also the force continuum model? It is your duty as an Instructor or student alike.

If you don’t know then you will have plenty of time to practice your ‘killer techniques’ in the showers in D block in one of the many prisons around the world.

So should we be teaching these nefarious techniques to others?

Well let’s remember self defence is scenario based. No two situations are the same. Depending on what is actually unfolding around you will determine the level of your response. Remember the appropriate response may or may not be a physical one.

Maybe the situation requires you to disengage, run, hide, escape, de-escalate, and negotiate?

Physically you may have to, use a breakaway technique, control and restraint, immobilise, subdue, submit, and incapacitate, knockout or even kill?

Your job is to know which of these responses are appropriate at the time. Not easy. But this is what we should be training for. Not everything is code black  and seek and destroy.

The law doesn’t expect you to get everything right down to the letter under the pressure of a real attack but if you are walking around boasting what a deadly fighter you are, black belt, cage fighter, Rambo or Ninja turtle, the law will presume that you have the necessary skills to make the right call more so than Joe Public would.

So can you take another’s live in the eyes of the law? Yes but you are going to have to prove it and justify it. If you can’t you are in big trouble. Remember it is a crime until proven otherwise. There is no free license to kill another even if you are being raped at gunpoint or some psychopath is trying to take your head off with a machete.

I n these extreme circumstances you may be prepared to do what is needed in that moment and answer to the law later.

There are no exceptions and you are accountable for your actions. Just as every man is. You will still have to prove you were justified in what you did.

The simplest way to view if you are justified is imagine you are sat on a jury and listening to yourself explain your actions. Would you agree with them or would you view it differently? Would all the jury members agree that yes it was justified?

You have always got to consider your actions and the consequences. Real life is not a film were people can go around breaking arms, necks and laws without being answerable.

When using physical technique for self defence you should ask yourself these questions.

Are my actions needed?

Are they necessary?

Did I have any other choice or option open to me?

Are my actions justified?

There are two sides to self defence training.

Learning how to defend yourself and with what and knowing when to defend yourself and with what.

In the dojo you can play out any technique without consequence but outside of the protected gym environment it is a different story.

You would do well to remember you will not always be fighting Godzilla.

 

The Dangers of Killer Instinct, Part I – Rodney King

The vast consumption of reality based self defence programs are not by military, law enforcement, or occupations that deal with interpersonal violence on a regular basis — but rather civilians. Civilians by their very nature, and at least in the relative safety of the Western world have very little experience with interpersonal violence, outside of Hollywoods depiction of it. Added to this, there is an uneasy truth that is often not spoken openly about in the world of ‘self-defence marketing’  — that very few of these civilians will ever have to deal with an interpersonal violent confrontation in their lifetime, at least not one that would be considered life or death.

Yet with the onslaught of media that seem to focus exclusively on a world that is seen as wholly unsafe, it is no wonder then that civilians — especially those who live in the cushy, relative safety of upper class suburbia — feel it necessary to seek out methods to secure their safety. The way the media portrays it, no matter where you live in the world, there is a bad guy around every street corner (who knows even your butler might be out to get you).

The methods of teaching often employed in many of these reality based self defence schools seek to unlock the killer instinct within an audience which as suggested earlier are not acquainted with acts of violence on a daily basis. Bringing out the animal nature in civilians is proposed as the type of traits necessary for them to defend against a violent, deranged, attacker. This approach in my view, far from being productive, and of course constructive in giving someone the necessary fortitude to take on a violent assailant, is to a large degree setting them up for failure. Before I suggest why this may be the case, I want to set the grounding for what I term self preservation, as opposed to self defence and an ego fight.

Getting Clear on Self Preservation

At least from my perspective, self defence has always held a reactionary meaning. For example, one finds oneself in a bad situation, you are attacked and you deploy your self defence skills (often, as pointed out earlier with intensity and ferocity, i.e., with that killer instinct).

Self preservation on the other hand, at least as I am defining it, is preemptive in nature. From this perspective self preservation doesn’t begin when someone attacks you, but starts that morning, a day, a month, and even a year earlier. The reality is that statistically a person living in the suburbs is more likely to be seriously injured, even killed in a motor vehicle accident — especially when not wearing a safety belt — than being mugged. Statistically speaking a person is more likely to have a heart attack and die because of bad nutritional choices in the Western world, than being attacked by another human being. If we are then seriously talking self-preservation, which is the preservation of the self (i.e., to live), it then implies that ‘safety’ of oneself is not just when someone attacks you, but rather ensuring self preservation in the things that WILL happen, and are more likely to kill you on an average day. For instance if you really valued your life, then you should make sure you put your safety belt on when you get into your motor vehicle or not eating cholesterol rich food that will clog up your arteries and cause you to have a heart attack.

When one then takes this further self preservation implies being astute and aware of ones surroundings (take note, I said aware not paranoid). Why go down to that nightclub when you know it’s a hot spot for violence? If you do find yourself in a nightclub, and a bunch of guys are giving you the evil eye, and you sense that it may escalate, leave the club and go home. If you are out at night and you have to park your car on the curb, then choose a spot that is well lit, and frequented by many people, and not the one around the corner near that alleyway with no visible lighting. If you bump into someone in a bar, and he spills your drink, your default setting shouldn’t be to turn around in a rage — which then changes a situation that could have been deescalated to now one that could result in potential personal harm. This more importantly is not self preservation, it’s ego defence. If you walking in a bar, and you bump someone and he spills his drink all over you, your first reaction shouldn’t be to throw profanities at that person, but rather to apologise, see it as an accident (which it more than likely was) and use verbal jiu jitsu tactics to politely ask if you can buy them another drink. This is self preservation, more over it is being a mature, sensible human being.

Often times, what is passed off in the world of reality based self defence is akin more to ego defence, than true self preservation. If we are honestly talking self preservation, then it is about avoiding violence where ever possible, It is about being aware of potential threats and removing oneself before a potential problem arises. If faced with a threat, then the first choice should always be to talk that person down using verbal jiu-jitsu, and if no other choice is available and it requires that you need to go hands on — then you do just enough to neutralise the threat — and then immediately find the nearest exit. This is what it means to preserve the self.

I would argue that many people, especially those teaching reality based self defence would have a hard time with this definition. One only has to look to YouTube to see a myriad of ‘self defence’ videos, where the defender fends off an attack, only then to go ballistic on the opponent, stomping his head into the ground, even though and crucially (albeit it being a demonstration) the fight was actually won ten moves earlier. Lets not even talk here about the appropriate use of force applied to the situation at hand. I am surprised that not more of these instructors or their students are dealing with assault charges.

Additionally tons of ‘self defence’ videos can be found on YouTube that show situations where if someone gets in your face then you neutralise him with a barrage of vicious attacks. But when one looks closer at many of these situations, especially contextually — how these situations are dealt with, even set up, are more often than not about the ego, not self preservation.

The reality is, if you truly talking or teaching self preservation then the number one thing you want to teach someone is to avoid conflict at all costs (of course the ego doesn’t like this approach, but that should be a ‘self defence’ lesson too). This understanding seems to be a no brainer for wild animals, who would much rather posture than fight. They know all to well that even if they fought  and one of them won, whilst the other died — the injuries sustained by the victor could mean that they both die in the end — albeit a week or so later.  

Revisiting Killer Instinct

Coming back to the notion of teaching civilians killer instinct. There is several glaring problems with this approach. Firstly, it is wholly out of context to how people typically live. Most people, unless they find themselves in a profession that encounter interpersonal violence on a regular basis, the most they have to deal with is an occasional road rage incident on the way to drop the kids off at school. In most incidents that the average person may have to deal with, in which it could potentially become interpersonal aggression — the use of awareness, verbal jiu-jitsu skills, and a sensible, mature attitude to a given situation — is more often than not the best form of ‘self defence’.

When civilians are taught to focus on killer instinct as the master strategy, and they do find themselves having to deal with a potential physical threat, it sets the stage for the hammer and the nail syndrome. If all you ever have is a hammer (killer instinct)  then that is what you will likely default to using for all potential aggressive encounters (the nails). As they say, you rise to the level of your training. People trained to deal with potential violent encounters with killer instinct will default to this as their master strategy, because they would have never been taught that a battle is not always won, or needs to be won with fists. Coming back to my examples previously that implied what I meant by self preservation, if we are seriously talking about the defence of self (not an ego fight), then using verbal jiu jitsu to talk ones way out of a situation is far more prudent a strategy than risking ones safety by being physically injured. Lets be honest too, no one really wins in a fight, even if you win, you may still walk away from that with injuries that you may never recover from (physical, psychological or otherwise).   

Secondly, invoking killer instinct especially in those who are not exposed to violence on a regular basis will likely result in a hyped up berserk state that would create a lack of awareness on the part of the user. Training it in the confines of the gym, is not the same as using it on the street. The latter will be tied to a massive overdose of survival hormones that will alter both emotional and cognitive functions. The result then is a tendency in the midst of that berserk state, fuelled on by adrenaline etc al., to then centralise ones focus, thus losing touch with what else is happening around oneself. In other words you simply no longer have situational awareness. The result, you may not see that multiple assailants have surrounded you, or if  an opportunity for escape presents itself, you may miss it completely.

Thirdly killer instinct mismanaged, which it likely will be considering the civilian nature of the user, will result in an over reliance on the reptilian brain in that moment (the fight/flight/freeze response), thus shutting down the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for higher cognitive functions like planning, distinguishing right from wrong, determining what is socially appropriate behaviour, decision-making, and producing insights. The truth is, anyone who has worked with interpersonal violence will tell you, being hyped up and aggressive is often a poor performance state to be in. You want to instead be cool, calm and collected. This allows you to make decisive, focused choices leading to keeping yourself and those you love safe.

For example, during my military service I served in VIP Protection. As a body guarding unit we were tasked to protect various important members of the armed forces. We were taught early on, that when faced with a potential threat, say for example from another human being moving towards us, that we needed to have an open focus (situational awareness), breath and keep calm. Remembering always that to get hyped up, or aggressive on one target would lead to a centralisation of focus on that one threat, thus loosing track of potentially other threats — not to mention forgetting about our primary mission — which was to keep our Principle safe.

End Part I.

 

About the Author

Rodney King M.A., RSME is the creator of Crazy Monkey Defense, and its sister self-preservation program Combat Intelligent Athlete. He has taught army special forces and law enforcement teams how to survive a life and death encounter when all they have is their body to defend themselves with.  You can find out more about Rodney and his work at www.coachrodneyking.com or www.crazymonkeydefense.com

The Dangers of the Killer Instinct, Part II – Rodney King

The Misunderstanding Of Applied Martial Technique

If you agree with my line of enquiry, then the question is why is this hyped-up aggressive approach to dealing with interpersonal violence so widely taught, and not just that, often as the primary go to strategy?

Most reality based self defence instructors often start teaching from the moment of the attack itself. Little or not time as I have seen is spent on anything other than dealing with the actual attack. Most everything else is cursory at best. Of course there are times when attacks happen without warning, but I would argue, and based on the students mostly being taught (i.e., civilians) there is a strong likelihood that what they will more than likely encounter in their lifetime (probably more than on one occasion) is someone bumping into them in a bar. As noted earlier in that situation, awareness, verbal jiu-jitsu skills, and a sensible, mature attitude are far more practical self preservation skills for the average Joe to have, than how to eye gouge someone.

Secondly, many reality based self defence instructors have never actually been in interpersonal violence themselves. This sets up an unrealistic mental framework of the reality of violence, which is, as I have been notting not something anyone who really cares deeply about their safety would want to be engaged in. However avoidance, verbal jiu jitsu etc, seems never to be adequately if at all taught in reality based self defence systems. For all the practicality expowsed by these reality based experts, much of what they teach isn’t reality at all. How could it be, they have no real experience themselves to begin with. If they did, they wouldn’t then glorify the violence as they do. It also wouldn’t be their default strategy to use violence to solve violence.

Thirdly, when these reality based instructors do train under someone who has real world experience in interpersonal violence they often choose ex-military personnel, preferably someone from a special force unit (it just looks cooler on a resume too). I am the first to admit, that someone who has gone to war and survived has a lot to teach the average person about managing fear, explaining the reality of real violence, and the psychological dynamics that underpin it. However fighting on a battlefield is not the same as defending oneself on civvy street. The mandate for a soldier (relevant to their role of course), and the level of violence that a solider is allowed to apply, not to mention the context — is very different to that of a civilian. Civilians not only have to protect themselves, but they also have to seriously consider the legal ramifications of the force they use.

Finally and my greatest concern, which harks back to the notion of a killer instinctive mindset to deal with interpersonal violence. Using my favourite resource on the topic of reality based self defence training YouTube — clip after clip one watches an attacker who attacks, a defender who defends, who then goes on to obliterate the attacker with a barrage of fast, dynamic, aggressive striking. While the attacker stops hitting after the first blow, proceeds to cower, folds under the pressure and then falls to the floor. Anyone else see a glaring problem with this?

There is an unconscious assumption in these demonstrations that the person you are fighting doesn’t know how to fight. I don’t know about you, but seldom did I find working as the head doorman outside some of Johannesburg’s roughest nightclubs for several years, where a person would only strike me once then allow me to do what ever I liked to him. People actually fight back. What is equally not taught is what happens when your super fast, vicious, merciless, counter offence doesn’t work?

Lets say you teach a person to preempt a potential violent encounter with another person, or lets say you teach to aggressively, and mercilessly mount a barrage of counter offensive moves when a punch is thrown at a person (all of course with the killer instinct that is required). But lets just say reality steps in, as it always does, and the permeative strike, or that barrage of vicious counter offence doesn’t work? Lets say the other person now not only fights back, but fights back even harder because they now want to survive at all costs (imagine that?) Now all of a sudden, not only didn’t the physical technique work, but neither did that bezerker killer instinct.

Now what?

The defender may now find himself going from winning to losing. He may have started off pumped up, and hyped up on aggression, but now finds himself in a situation with all his physical resources depleted. Added to this his confidence has now taken a major battering, which may result at worst that he freezes or turns his back on the threat. When killer instinct doesn’t work, there is only one way to go, and that’s down into a negative spiral that most people who are not used to surviving violence will likely never recover from.

The Body Is Already Primed To Survive

The reality is, when faced with any kind of danger (real or unreal) the body is already primed for danger. For a long time the general consensus when talking about fear was that it was activated through a cognitive appraisal of a threat, which then invoked a fear response. That feeling of fear then drives the expression of behavioural defence responses. In other words we run from a bear because we see it, recognise it as a bear, and are afraid of it. More and more though, researches like Joseph Le Doux have argued that the amygdala circuit detects threats non-consciously, and in turn controls the subsequent behavioural and psychological aspects of the fear response. It is the cognitive systems secondary role to interpret the feeling of fear.

What does this mean? It means, that for the most part the body primes itself for a potential threat in absence of conscious awareness and control. It is in other words automatic. The ingredients for survival then are automatically set into play the second a threat is detected (often as noted unconsciously). Using an approach then that seeks to heighten that survival response though cognitively arousing the mental state and bodily attitude even further by getting a person into a more killer instinct frame of mind — at least from my experience — interferes with the bodies natural ability to attend to a fearful situation as it has been designed too.

Not to state the obvious, but our ancestors adequately survived much harsher survival situations than we would likely encounter as civilians today, and they did this before a martial art school ever existed. More over, the overlaying of more cognitive demands on the system, can have unintended consequences, often negative as I have outlined in this article.

This is why, I teach my clients to be completely trusting in their training, done through progressive stress inoculation, to the point that as best as we can, everything has been given over to unconscious motor skills, which then allow for space within the mind to decide how one would want to attend to the situation one finds himself in (i.e using the prefrontal cortex, instead of being ruled by the reptilian brain). In this respect, my approach is to teach my clients how to stay calm, centred and mindful in a survival situation, not to make them more hyped up. The body is already primed unconsciously to deal with the threat, you don’t need to now either hype it up more, or force it to work for you. All you need to do is apply a grounded strategy and subsequent tactical system to neutralise the threat you face. As the saying goes a clear mind, is a determined and focused mind.

The Samurai, born and breed for battle knew this all to well. Togo Shigekata, a Samurai, proclaimed: “One finds life through conquering the fear of death within one’s mind. Empty the mind of all forms of attachment, make a go-for-broke charge and conquer the opponent with one decisive slash.” In other words, true performance in a life and death battle requires a mind that is clear, focused, expansive and aware — not one clouded by aggression!

About the Author
Rodney King M.A., RSME is the creator of Crazy Monkey Defense, and its sister self-preservation program Combat Intelligent Athlete. He has taught army special forces and law enforcement teams how to survive a life and death encounter when all they have is their body to defend themselves with. You can find out more about Rodney and his work at www.coachrodneyking.com or www.crazymonkeydefense.com

The Confusion Between Conflict Resolution & De-escalation, Part II – Gershon Ben Keren

In last month’s article, I looked at the times when deescalating aggressive situations is an appropriate solution i.e. when the aggressor you are facing is involved in a “spontaneous” act of violence – one that they haven’t planned or orchestrated; but have become aggressive and potentially violent due to your actions or behaviors, whether real or perceived e.g. you have, or they believe you have, spilt a drink over them, jumped ahead of them in a queue, taken a parking space they were waiting for, etc. This is contrary to premeditated assaults, such as muggings and sexual assaults, where an aggressor has planned the incident and knows what they want to achieve/get out of it – they have a defined goal. Because in spontaneous situations there is no defined goal or specified outcome (the person you have spilt a drink over doesn’t know what will make the situation right for them), you may have the chance and opportunity to get them to consider non-violent alternatives that might resolve the conflict/dispute. However in order to do this, you must first take some of the emotion out of the situation so that they are able to consider these alternatives – this is the purpose of the de-escalation process.

To understand how this process works, we must first gain an appreciation for the way that people think, and interpret your actions and behaviors when emotive and aggressive. As you are reading this article, you are using your brain’s reasoning capacity, however if you were to become angry, this would start to shut off and you would start to process information using your limbic system brain. Your limbic system brain doesn’t understand reason and rationale, it is used to understanding disputes and conflicts at the social level, as a dog or a wolf would. Dogs and wolves are social creatures (bereft of reason) who resolve disputes through posture and submission e.g. one growls, snarls and makes themselves look big, whilst the other roles over and exposes it’s neck in a display of submission (conflict resolved).

When a person becomes emotional and aggressive, they start using brain functions and paths which are more animalistic – dog-like. They stop using their reasoning brain to process information, and start to see conflicts in a more dog-like way, with the person they are dealing with either posturing to them, or acting submissively. If you have ever told an angry person to calm down, you have probably been met with the response, “I AM CALM!” Instead of interpreting what you said in the spirit it was meant, they can only see and hear things from the perspective of them being either an act of posturing or submission; when you tell somebody to calm down, stop shouting etc., you are telling them what to do, and so they posture back to you – this escalates rather than de-escalates the conflict.

If they are extremely emotional, they may be using their reptilian brain, rather than their limbic system/mammalian brain. Their reptilian brain will interpret everything as being either fight or flight – reptiles are not social creatures in the way that dogs are and so their interpretations of threats, conflicts and disputes are much more basic; they either disengage or they attack (they can give warning signs, but these are different to acts of posturing, as only disengagement – flight – rather than acting submissively will avert and attack).
The goal of any de-escalation process should be to get an individual to stop working with their limbic system or reptilian brain(s), and start to use their reasoning brain again. If you can get an aggressor to start using and applying reason and rationale to a situation, rather than emotion, they will be able to consider alternatives to violence.

One way to get an aggressive individual to start using their rational/reasoning brain, is to recognize and inform them of their emotional state. Saying something like, “You seem really angry”, can be one way of doing this. Feelings and emotions, are not the same thing. Our emotional state is the physical state we are in, such as being adrenalized, our feelings are the conscious interpretation of that state, such as feeling angry or scared, etc. When we are highly emotional, and our reasoning brain shuts off, we are not able to “feel” our emotional state, we are just in it. By pointing out how an aggressor is “feeling”, such as being angry, will often cause them to register their emotional state; something that they have to use their reasoning brain for. A common response to this statement is, “Of course I’m angry, you spilt a drink over me!” This is a good starting point, as the emotional individual is now starting to process what has happened to them, and the reasoning brain has been engaged, even if it is not in full control of that person’s actions and behaviors.

To keep the person processing the situation from a rational perspective, you can follow up with the question, “what can I do to sort this out?” This question forces an aggressor to start using their reasoning brain to consider different alternatives, which would potentially satisfy them in the situation. The emotional limbic and reptilian brains, are unable to weigh up the pros and cons of different outcomes, and so have to hand over this decision making process to the reasoning brain. It may be that the individual responds that you can buy them another drink and pay for their dry cleaning. The fact that it is the aggressor who has determined the solution to the situation is important, as it allows them to posture in a controlled and directed manner, which means by accepting their solution, you are acting in the submissive role – in the animal kingdom – or when people are processing information – this submissive response will end the conflict.

If you were to make the suggestion that you should buy this individual another drink and pay for their dry-cleaning, it is likely that your idea would have been interpreted as you posturing to them, i.e. telling them how the conflict will be resolved – you setting the terms. There may of course be individuals who make preposterous and ridiculous demands e.g. you can buy drinks for them and their friends for the rest of the night, etc. In such cases, you can still keep the person engaging with their reasoning mind by saying something along the lines of, “I’m sorry but I’m not able to do that, can you think of anything else that might resolve this situation?” As long as they can keep on track, coming up with alternatives, their reasoning brain is engaged.

In some cases, usually when a person is working with their reptilian brain, they may be so emotional that de-escalation isn’t an option. The clearest signal that somebody is about to assault you, in a spontaneous act of violence, is when they lose verbal control and reasoning. When a person meets your statements or questions with silence, garbles and jumbles their words (“you drink my spilt!”) and/or simply keeps repeating the injustice over and over again, faster and faster e.g. “you spilt my drink!”, “You Spilt My Drink!”, “YOU SPILT MY DRINK!” these are clear warning signs that they are unable to understand or process what you are saying and they are in fight or flight mode; more likely fight. This is the time when you need to ditch your de-escalation process and prepare to respond physically either by creating distance for yourself, or by attacking pre-emptively; the time for talking is over. I have heard many people in the security and self-defense industry talk about other warning signs, such as changes in a person’s complexion, etc., and whilst these do occur, they can be hard to notice and identify, especially if lighting is low-level, such as a in a nightclub or bar, or if the person has been consuming alcohol. Checking a person’s ability to reason verbally is a much better indication of their emotional state.
Whenever you attempt to de-escalate a situation, you should do so in a non-threatening stance, with your hands out in a placating fashion, so that your body language and posture reflects what you are saying (see photo). With your hands out in front of you, in the international language for both “stop”, and “I don’t want any trouble”, you will be both confirming your desire to de-escalate and resolve the conflict as well as putting yourself in a good position to both defend yourself and attack pre-emptively; in any crisis negotiation you should be prepared to respond physically if necessary, even if this isn’t your primary goal.