Being Street Smart Requires Knowing Your Limits, Part II – Erik Kondo

It’s not your fault if you don’t know the limits of your ability. The entire culture of self-defense training is based on getting people to act. It is based around the viewpoint that you are the innocent victim who is suddenly attacked by a “Bad Guy”. You have no choice but to physically defend yourself. And doing anything is better than doing nothing.

The classic example of this culture comes from women’s self-defense classes. The typical women’s class is focused on the scenario of a vulnerable woman who is attacked by a vicious rapist/killer. The woman is assumed to be culturally submissive and afraid to fight back. It is assumed she is afraid to make her attacker “mad”. Therefore, in order to induce her to take physical action, she must be shown how “easy” it is for her to physically defend herself. 

In such a class, the failure of the instructed defensive technique is thought to shatter the student’s confidence. Therefore, the techniques are always shown to work in the simulated attacks.

In these created scenarios, there is no before the attack. There is just the attack. You are told there is no time for good judgement and critical thinking, your training kicks in and you just act. You can’t use excessive force – he is a Bad Guy – a rapist/killer after all. “Better be tried by twelve (jurors) then be carried by six (pall bearers)” is the mantra.

In actuality (statistically speaking), you are unlikely to be suddenly attacked without warning by a stranger (even through it does happen). But you are more likely to be ambushed if you are street dumb. Street smart people are less likely to find themselves in situations they can’t handle because they know and respect their limits. They disengage from potentially threatening situations and urban environments that are beyond their ability to handle.

Dealing with the BEFORE an attack is much more complicated than simply teaching physical technique. It requires having knowledge of criminal behavior. It requires treating the students as individuals with different levels of ability and different motivations. This type of instruction is more time consuming.  It runs the risk of being categorized as “victim blaming”. On the other hand, the easiest and cheapest method to teach a self-defense class is to do the following:

1. Assume all your students are innocent victims that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 
2. Assume all attackers are uniformly alike. They are evil strangers with the intent to seriously harm your students. But, they will most likely run away if the student does one or two of the taught “highly effective and devastating” defensive techniques.


Given these conditions, a self-defense instructor can teach a few techniques in a few hours. There is also time left for the students to successfully execute the techniques on a compliant attacker. The students leave the class feeling empowered with their new physical skills. They are happy because the class showed them how to deal with what many fear the most – being attacked by a violent stranger. The instructor is now ready to teach the same techniques to the next batch of students with the same irrational (low probability) fear.

This method is also financially sustainable since one or two instructors can teach 15-30 students at a time. The more students in the class, the lower the fee necessary to cover expenses and make a profit. 

Conversely, it would be difficult to teach a self-defense class under the following conditions:

1. Assume the students are all individuals with different abilities, limitations, habits, behaviors, methodologies, psychology, desires, and fears.
2. Assume all attackers are all individuals with different abilities, limitations, habits, behaviors, methodologies, psychology, desires, and fears.
3. Assume that attackers are known to the victim and that there is a buildup to the actual physical attack.
4. Assume that the many attacks are not life and death situations where it is more probable to be tried by twelve for excessive force than to be carried by six.

Under these assumptions, it is clear that a few hours is not enough time to teach 15-30 students to be street smart by one or two instructors. Such a class would require the students to get individualized attention over many multiple-hour sessions. 

Regardless of how much instruction some students received, in an actual situation, some of them would have a high failure rate for their techniques. For every accomplished skateboarder, rock climber, biker and skier, there are many that can barely perform the sport.

A practical problem is the scarcity of potential students who are both willing to devote more than a total of a few hours, and pay more than a nominal fee for training. The end result is a useful self-defense class that is difficult to sustain financially and has few students.

Nobody expects to become a skilled skateboarder/climber/biker/skier in a few hours. Why are the expectations of these activities so different from self-defense training?

In this case, regardless of what their instructor or others may have told them about their ability, upon engaging in the activity, participants get authentic feedback. These experiences provide them with an accurate assessment of their current ability. Gravity is a consistent and truthful teacher. Gravity doesn’t lie. As a result, they learn the true breaking point of their ability. The culture of these activities revolves around what you can actually do, not what you think, or are told you can do.

Contrast this situation with physical self-defense training. The majority of few hour students will never have the opportunity to “test” their physical skills in real life. Those that engage in long term martial arts training don’t ever learn their techniques’ breaking/failure points. Unlike the skateboarding/climbing/biking/skiing culture of constant testing and minor failure in new environments/situations, the self-defense/martial arts culture is one of no real testing and the ever present potential for catastrophic failure in an actual new environment/situation.

Many martial arts teachers actively discourage their students from going to new environments (other types of training styles, locations, teachers, etc.). Cross training is frowned upon. Different training methods are belittled and called “ineffective”. This is tribal behavior. The instructor and his or her students’ egos become wrapped up in how well they perform techniques in the dojo. Complaint training partners are prized. The ability to accurately assess the probability of success and failure of a given technique on different people is not considered.

The culture of many martial arts dojos and self-defense classes is fear of showing failure. Higher ranks and self-defense “experts” are not supposed to fail. They are expected to be able to perform all their techniques, on anyone, all the time.  The end result is people who have taken self-defense classes and/or engaged in martial arts training who are still effectively street dumb.

 

Managing Discrepancy – Schalk Holloway

My parents stayed in a small town on the Gold Coast of Queensland Australia for a couple of years. As is customary when visiting another country one quickly gets around to chatting about everything that’s different and strange from what you are used to. One of the first things they told me was about how different pedestrian crossings were to South Africa (where I reside and where we all come from). Apparently vehicle drivers in their own and the surrounding towns always give way to pedestrians. As in always. This sounded unbelievable as in South Africa you really have to watch your ass when crossing roads. Being my usual sceptical self I decided to check it out for the six weeks that I visited.

First thing I noticed was that the pedestrians there don’t even look before crossing. Initially it freaked me out. Every time I saw a pedestrian just going for it I would imagine them getting ploughed down by oncoming traffic. Never happened though. Vehicles just magically stop for pedestrians. It was crazy. They just assume all vehicles are going to stop. And they do. Interesting thing is that it is law that vehicles should give way for pedestrians in both countries. So technically – that’s what it should be like in South Africa as well. But it isn’t.

There’s a discrepancy between what is and what we believe should be.

I got into a tangle with a couple of ladies a while ago for sharing an article from Mashable where Mashable responded to a statement made by Dr. Ruth Westheimer. She was quoted saying the following on a radio show

I know it’s controversial, but for your program, I’m going to stand up and be counted and, like I do in the book, be very honest. I am very worried about college campuses saying that a woman and a man or two men or two women, but I talk right now about woman and man, can be in bed together, Diane, and at one time, naked, and at one time, he or she — most of the time they think she can say, I changed my mind. No such thing is possible. ¹

I thought “wow, that’s good advice.” Got riled big time though by the girls. They felt that this idea is oppressive by nature. Their argument is that they should be able to do pretty much what they want to with their bodies without any fear of any type abuse. I agree.

But there is currently a discrepancy between what is and what we believe should be.

That discrepancy is conflicting by nature. In both the anecdotes that I have shared I am presupposing that what we believe should be is truth. Coming to this position is also a necessary process but it is not the focus of this article. This article is focused on the discrepancy and managing that discrepancy.

The first principle of managing the discrepancy is mutual acceptance of both positions.

Those on the side of what is needs to be honest about whether change or movement is necessary. Is what should be honestly and objectively healthier for all involved? If so, are we willing to accept that? If not why not? Those on the side of what we believe should be should at least acknowledge, if not accept, the reality of what currently is. If what is really is then we need to work from there to here.

I shared the first anecdote with the ladies from the second anecdote. Why? My argument is the following: If I, as a loving father, have to teach my children about pedestrian crossings, what do I teach? Do I just teach what is (South African experience)? Do I just teach what should be (Australian experience)? Or do I teach both? Which approach is best equated with my position as a loving father?

For me, it would obviously be to teach both. Advocates of what should be say that I should just teach my child that YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS THE ROAD WHENEVER YOU WANT TO WITHOUT FEAR OF MOVING VEHICLES. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO STOP FOR YOU! But that would be silly because the current reality of what is is that they don’t always stop. So I teach both. I teach something along the lines of “remember, vehicles are supposed to stop, and when you drive try to be aware and always stop. But still, before crossing, check, because they don’t always stop.”

So why not teach my daughter that yes, her body is hers and she should be able to do with it what she wants, but also, that yes, the world DOES NOT CURRENTLY WORK LIKE THAT, so maybe it’s not the wisest thing to jump naked into bed if you’re not planning on having sex (and yes, I, as her father, would talk to my daughter about that).

The ladies agreed to this line of thinking. If they did not, I would seriously have wondered why.

The second principle of managing the discrepancy is accepting that it is a process.

Getting from there to here will have to be a process.

If we have to put should be as position 10 on a line of 1 to 10 and is as position 1 as follows

IS SHOULD BE

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

and we are serious about getting from what is to what should be then we need to acknowledge that is is a distance away. There has to be a process. If you are not willing to acknowledge this principle of process – why not?

The third principle of managing the discrepancy is allowing the two positions to compliment each other.

This principle should actually be the first principle.

However, in highly polarized or aggressive environments it’s not possible to see the complimentary potential until the first two principles have been established. Thinking about different words to describe the two groups we can possibly go with realists for the what is camp and visionaries for the should be camp.

My wife and I fall broadly into these two categories. I’m the realist. She’s the visionary. She essentially creates a lot of energy for movement by consistently helping us to see where we should be going. I get us moving effectively because I’ve got a good handle on where we are and what would be good first steps. This is great. Energy and effectivity. We compliment each other. And I think it serves as a good (albeit simplistic) analogy for what can be possible once we start to see the worth that each of the groups bring to the situation.

¹ http://mashable.com/2015/06/02/dr-ruth-rape-consent/

Maintaining Balance – Ashtad Rustomji

In almost every field of study or work, there are various areas with focus on different aspects of that subject. These areas are meant to achieve a specific purpose in a specific aspect of that subject.

For example, what comes to your mind when I say ‘Fitness’? Now when I say ‘Self-Defense‘ ‘Self-Protection‘ ’Conflict Management‘ etc. what areas of studies come to your mind? Does one specific thing come to your mind or more than one? There are many other similar fields of study like physics and engineering that focus on various areas of those subjects.

Now, let’s take fitness for example, it’s not just about lifting weights or “just”  running or “just” yoga, stretching, etc. No, in biological terms, Fitness is an organism‘s ability to survive in a particular environment. Of course it can also be described as being competent enough to fulfill a particular task. It also can be described as a condition of being physically strong, athletic and healthy.

There is no one aspect of fitness, it consists of combining different areas that focus on improving your physical abilities. The main areas include Cardio, Calisthenics, Weight training and along with them an equally important aspect would be; Diet and Nutrition. Of course there are sub-categories of the above mentioned areas that focus on and specialize in different aspects like Endurance, Stamina, Dexterity, Reflexes and Flexibility, Strength, Speed, Durability, Conditioning, but doing only one of these, won‘t mean that you have achieved physical fitness, it would only mean that you‘re not totally out of shape. Only by training every aspect, understanding it as a whole and applying the knowledge practically will you achieve a certain level of fitness and you will progress further from there. The thing is, fitness doesn’t end on the physical level, but extends to a psychological level too, there are exercises that help you be more focused, improve concentration, etc. When you train on both levels with dedication and persistence, you achieve total fitness.

Same goes with Conflict Management, Self Protection, Self Defense, etc. They’re not just one thing, they’re composed of many different aspects that address all the necessary requirements to survive violence. Focusing on just one of those aspects will not help you prepare for what you think you are preparing for, instead it‘ll just give you a false sense of security that will be destroyed when you face something you weren’t even aware was a part of it.

There are many who tend to focus on just one aspect of those subjects, resulting in an incomplete analysis of what they truly consist of, therefore not achieving effective solutions to the problems they‘re claiming to solve.

Same goes for the training balance between SD and Martial Arts. They’re not the same. Simply put, SD doesn’t take a lifetime to learn, it’s a legal term used when you need to justify your violent actions during an attack in the court of law. You simply cannot pile them together, there has to be a balance between what you train for violence and what you train as an art or as part of a skill development routine.

When learning and training in subjects like CM, SD, SP, a lot of different areas need to be focused on. They are;

-Legal.

-Societal.

-Environmental.

-Consequential.-

-Moral.

-Psychological.

-Biological.

-Physical.

-Strategic.

-Tactical.

These areas give an overall understanding of violence dynamics. While it is a broad subject, the physical aspects are given the most preference than any other by most. There is no balance in training for violence, it’s all about fighting for many.

But without the balance in training, the knowledge and preparation required to face and survive violence is not gained resulting in an incomplete understanding of the subject matter. When that happens the individuals involved in the violent incident have to face harsh Consequences of their actions. They don’t know when to avoid and back-off (Strategic) and they don’t know how to prevent it (Tactical), they’re not aware of the Legal, Moral or Societal Consequences of their actions, so they resort directly to (what is supposed to be) the last option, I.e. the Physical part of the subject without considering the Environment they‘re in, which either leads to them landing in more trouble than they imagined and more damaged than they expected (or didn‘t expect), not to mention the Psychological issues that occur in the aftermath of violence.

Same goes for Martial Arts too. Too many get too focused on the punching and kicking rather than focus on the responsibilities that come with being a Martial Artist and the in-depth knowledge required to actually be competent enough to utilize the techniques taught as practically as possible in the appropriate environment and to know when and how to translate them to various situations.

I’ve heard Martial Artists say that Martial Arts is a journey and yes, they’re absolutely correct, it’s just that sometimes, some Martial Artists forget where their journey is supposed to lead them, there is no destination for their journey, and a journey without a destination is just wandering around aimlessly.

Most of them just follow “What their instructors once told them“, rather than think for themselves and try to understand what the instructor meant by what they said or even question whether what they said made any sense at all in the first place. All the while forgetting to maintain the required balance between the physical aspect of Martial Arts and the non-physical ones, which in MA’s case, includes an unique aspect of; Philosophy. Many know it as ‘Budo’. Of course, it’s a Japanese term, but the philosophy itself is applied in virtually all of traditional and classical Martial Arts. It encompasses much more than physical techniques and violence, it includes self-control, self-discipline, respecting others, understanding your art in not just width, but in depth. These things, the principles, they transcend the physical aspect of Martial Arts. They’re what help a Martial Artist maintain the balance in their training.

In conclusion, Balance is a simple principle that applies to just about everything. Without balance, the desired results will not only be difficult to achieve, but almost impossible.

It doesn‘t matter how hard you train in one area of the subject, not unlike a machine, without all of the components, the knowledge will not be fully functional and effective.

Of course, I’ll add this, I’m obviously no “expert” on any of the subjects above. What I wrote, are just my opinions based on my experiences and research, you (the reader) will have to test things out for yourself to check and see if I’m b.s’ing or if these things are indeed true. After all, what good is information if you don’t test it and put it into action, right?

Well, that’s all. Thank you for reading.

 

Are You Managing Conflict? – Toby Cowern

What does the word ’Conflict’ bring to your mind?

As I look across a large spectrum of books, magazines, forums, videos and articles it seems many people ‘preparing for conflict’ are addressing, what I would call, the ‘high impact, low likelihood’ scenarios. How to tackle an assailant with a gun. How to fend off a physical assault by multiple persons. How to defeat not one, but two, knife wielding robbers! While I do not want to dispute these situations can and do occur, it occurs to me a few minutes spent looking at the ‘bigger picture in smaller detail’ maybe well spent.

The definition of ‘Conflict’ is listed as 1. (noun) A serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one. (e.g. “the eternal conflict between the sexes”) 2. (Verb) Be incompatible or at variance; clash (e.g. “parents’ and children’s interests sometimes conflict”)

When we look in those terms, the ‘frenzied attack’ frequently trained for, is actually quite absent in the true meaning of ‘Conflict’. So we should be asking ourselves, what are the actual conflicts I am experiencing or likely to experience?  If I want to successfully manage ‘Conflict’, how should I prioritize where to invest my time and energy first?

Knowing that a number of the leading causes of stress1 easily fall into association with the ‘Conflict’ category and knowing that stress contribute to some of the primary causes of death2 we should definitely have a vested interest in exploring this idea more.

There is a plethora of ‘lists of top causes’ when it comes to stress, but common overlaps can be found in; Childhood trauma, Personal relationships (Including work related), Divorce, Economic Problems and Personal Health Issues. While it is certainly not my intention to turn this article into an ‘Advice Column’ I am going to encourage all of you readers to just think for a moment. Very often these conflict issues, especially concerning spouses and family, can become quite the ‘elephant in the room’ and actually the escapism offered by certain forms of training can be the coping mechanism to deal with the stress, or conflict, you are actually suffering from.

Let’s just re-phrase that: You are training to defend yourself from a potentially extremely violent altercation, in order to avoid dealing with a lower level altercation. If you accept this premise, you’ll realize this is quite the dichotomy, or at the very least realize there is a significant mis-prioritization occurring.

As I look back on some of my previous training priorities and segway it with my personal circumstances at the time, I can clearly see a number of occasions that this incorrect prioritization was present, to put it bluntly I was training for the potential altercation, in order to avoid the actual. So how am I seeing this now, but not then?

One of the biggest contributors to identifying and managing these personal conflicts was attending the ‘Conflict Communication’ training delivered by Rory Miller. With an understanding and recognition of how various ‘Scripts’ play out, it is far easier to see what is happening, more fully react to and successfully manage the conflict. This training course was one of those that you truly cannot believe how powerful it was until a few days after and you have had some time to reflect. I have had the fortune to attend this training three times now and would certainly encourage you to attend of possible. If you are unable then reading the book will be a good start point.

While Conflict Communications is a powerful tool, it is also more than within your capability to manage other aspects of Conflict that you maybe experiencing right now. All that is required to begin, is to take an objective look at your current circumstances, identify areas where conflicts currently exist and begin to strategize how best to deal with this. They key, quite simply, is to ensure you are prioritizing the Conflicts correctly. I strive to deal with the immediate, before training for the potential.

Maybe the technique for disarming two attackers armed with bats and knives can wait for another day, and a productive conversation with your significant other can happen instead? Instructors especially, if we cannot manage our own conflicts, how can we, in good faith, train others to manage theirs?

  1. http://www.livestrong.com/article/132015-top-10-causes-stress/
  2. http://psychcentral.com/lib/how-does-stress-affect-us/

 

You Are What You ATE, Part II – Erik Kondo

  1. In Part I, I listed my 5As of Accomplishment/Performance which are:

    1. ATE – Your Attributes, Training, and Experience.
    2. Awareness – What you perceive based on your ATE.
    3. Assessment – What you decide about what you perceived based on your ATE.
    4. Action – What you do based on what you decided based on what you perceived based on your ATE.
    5. Articulation – How you explain what you did based on what you decided based on what you perceived based on your ATE.

The idea is that your skillful accomplishment of a task is the result of five interdependent steps. Each successive step is based on the previous ones. The foundation of these steps to accomplish a task begins with your natural attributes, your formalized training and education, and your life experience.

In terms of the Iceberg diagram above, when we observe other people accomplish a task, we see what they have done. We see how they explain what they have done. But what we don’t see is how they decided to do what they did. How their perceptions influenced their decision. And how their individual attributes, training, and experience affected all of it.

In terms of Teaching

Given that no two people begin with the same ATE. It is unreasonable to expect that those two people would accomplish a given task in the same manner. Yes, you can theoretically provide two people with the very same training and education. But their individual natural attributes and life experience will differ. Therefore, their results will differ.

If you are teaching a class of twenty people to respond (accomplish a task) to a certain stimulous (a punch for example), you should expect twenty varied responses. If some of them respond in a manner vastly different from what you would do, then mostly likely, they have a vastly different ATE than you.

When an instructor’s ATE is very different from his students’ ATE, his “qualifications” may actually interfere with his ability to teach his students effectively. Unless, the Instructor consciously takes into account how his own ATE differs from his students. But to do so means being aware of how an individual’s ATE influences his or her accomplishment of any given task.

Take basic juggling for example. Once you are able to successfully juggle three balls, it is a relatively simple task. You are just throwing balls into the air, catching, and throwing again in a certain order. It doesn’t take great hand-eye coordination to accomplish. But it looks impressive. After you have been juggling for a while, it is easy to forget how difficult it was for you to learn. You can demonstrate juggling with ease.

What you have forgotten is that the Now-You is different from the Before-You who didn’t know how to juggle. The Now-You has a different ATE then the Before-You. Your Attributes may be the same. But your Training and life Experience has changed. Your brain wiring has been modified. You can never go back to what you were before your learned how to juggle.

Let’s say students come to your class saying they want to learn how to juggle. Yet they are only willing to devote a few hours to your class and will not practice afterwards. Can you really teach them to successfully juggle? There are always those few people whose extraordinary natural Attributes allow them to skillfully accomplish a new task quickly, but the majority cannot.  In this example, you must realize that unless the students have prior juggling training or life experience, they will not learn to juggle three balls. But they could learn to juggle two balls (which is not really juggling).

So what do you do? Try to teach them to juggle three balls which is more fun for you and allows you to demonstrate your skill, but knowing the majority will fail. Or teach them elementary two ball throwing which is unexciting, but something that all your students can realistically accomplish given their limitations?

Or do you tell them that their stated goal of learning to juggle is unrealistic? That they need to reconsider their commitment to learning to juggle. That they can learn to juggle, but it will require more time and effort on their part. All of which they will not want to hear and will most likely make you unpopular. Or do you just take their money and pretend that they will actually learn how to juggle due to your specialized teaching methods?

The Importance of Feedback

Your ATE is not static. It is only fixed in any given moment in time. It is always subject to change and evolvement. But if you are unwilling to train yourself and you limit your life experiences, then your ATE will remain in a narrow change. Your ATE is analogous to a Closed Belief System. People with a Closed Belief System are not open to new information. Their Belief System does not evolve. It is effectively static over time.

On the other hand, people with an Open Belief System are constantly evolving their beliefs in response to new information. And so it is with your ATE. You ATE will grow and evolve overtime if you allow it too. And you can actively evolve it by seeking out new training and new experiences.

What causes an ATE to change is a willingness to respond to Feedback.

Having static ATE is like being a computer running a fixed program. The computer responds in the same manner to identical input. It disregards feedback.  Computers with artificial intelligence on the other hand modify their programing in response to feedback. Their programming evolves.

But the quality of a person’s learning is limited to the quality of the feedback received. You can’t develop a high level skill without realistic feedback. This applies to both physical and mental skills. You need to know what you are doing correctly so you can keep doing it. And know what you are doing incorrectly, so you can stop/limit doing it. The more complex the skill, the more feedback is required.

Think of these main concepts in terms of self-defense instruction. The accomplished student is able to Articulate why he or she Acted in a certain manner, based on what he Assessed, based on what he was Aware of, in response to a particular threat, with all steps taking into consideration his individual ATE.  

There will be a result stemming from the student’s Action. This result is feedback. If the feedback is realistic, then the student’s ATE will evolve and improve. If the feedback is unrealistic, then the student’s ATE will evolve in an undesired manner. If the student rejects the feedback, then the student’s ATE will remain static.

If you can’t provide your students with realistic feedback, then they can’t really accomplish skill. But, they can develop the belief that they can accomplish a skill.

 

 

You Are What You ATE, Part I – Erik Kondo

Most people are familiar with the expression “You are what you eat.” It makes sense. Eat lots of high fat content greasy foods and you get obese. Eat mainly lean meats, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables and you stay nice and trim.

But you are also defined by your actions and by how you explain your actions to others. How you respond to occurrences and events in your life is a big part of who you are. What’s the difference between an accomplished expert and a bumbling novice? The expert both acts and communicates in an effective manner, whereas the novice does not.

Much of how a person responds to any given stimulus comes down to his or her individual ATE.

Where,

A = Attributes (innate abilities and hardwiring acquired from birth)

T = Training (what has been acquired from formalized training and education)

E = Experience (what has been acquired from life experience)

Think about it for a moment. Take different people, individually expose them to the exact same stimulus, next watch to see what happens. How the subjects respond is not random. They will respond in accordance with their ATE programming. People with a different ATE are likely to respond in correspondingly different manner in accordance with their ATE.

In terms of conflict management, let’s imagine for a moment that Person A is walking down the sidewalk and suddenly violently attacked from the rear. Person A is a 6’ 4” 220 lbs. physical specimen. He is an also a highly trained Navy Seal just back from his 3rd tour of duty in Afghanistan where he was involved in undercover operations.

One block over, Person B is also ambushed from behind. Person B is 5’ 2” and 110 lbs. Person B rarely exercises and works as an accountant for the IRS. Person B has had no training in any type of martial arts or physical self-defense. He has never been in involved in a violent incident in his life.

Person A and Person B are exposed to the same stimulus. But how they respond is determined by how they consciously and unconsciously perceive and assess the situation. While awake, people are in a state of continually assessing input from the environment. Most assessments are done automatically without conscious thought. We just do them as we go about our lives. Driving a car provides an example of a continuous stream of conscious/unconscious assessments, actions, and/or continuations of actions. These assessments come naturally from our awareness of the environment. For example, when driving, if you see a stop sign at an intersection, you decide to stop. If you don’t see a stop sign, you continue on your current course.

Awareness leads to assessments which leads to actions. Many times these actions need to be articulated. “I didn’t stop at the stop sign because I didn’t see it. It was obscured by a tree, Officer.”

But we all don’t have the same paradigm of awareness. Accomplished drivers know what to look for. Unaccomplished drivers will “see” a dangerous event unfold, yet not be aware of what is happening. A skilled driver has a different ATE than an unskilled one. The same goes people when it comes to conflict management. The ATE of skilled conflict managers differ greatly from unskilled ones.

In the earlier example, Person A and Person B will respond in vastly different manners due to their respective ATE. They will explain their actions also in accordance with their ATE. You are what you accomplish, and what you accomplish is linked directly to your ATE.

Someone who is “stuck” in life responds in accordance to a static script. This type of person’s ATE doesn’t change. Their knowledge says at the same level. Their experiences are viewed to be the same. They learn nothing new from them. This type of person has a fixed belief system. People with fixed belief systems and ATEs are living in an endlessly repeating loop. Like a pen circling on paper, the path becomes more and more entrenched into their mind and body. This static belief system is reinforced with stereotypes, bias, and closed-mindedness.

In contrast are those whose ATEs are under a constant state of evolvement. They seek out varied training and diverse experiences. Their belief system is fluid and subject to change. Their responses and scripts evolve with time. Since these people’s actions are constantly evolving, they are more defined by the sum of their accomplishments. Those with a static ATE are more identified by their belief system.

Unless you have somehow maximized your ATE at a very high level of accomplishment, you likely have much room for improvement. There is not so much you can do to change your inherited attributes. But you certainly can evolve your training and experience in order to reach a higher level of accomplishment.

An accomplished person effectively articulates what he or she does. What he does results from his assessment of the situation. His assessment is derived from his awareness of his the environment. His awareness, assessment, action(s), and articulation are all a function of his Attributes, Training, and Experience (ATE).

Part II

Zen and the Art of Conflict – Teja Van Wicklen

We dream of life without conflict, but conflict is a quintessential part of our reality. Like oxygen it is ever-present, building us up and breaking us down simultaneously. Just the idea of conflict can cause our shoulders to tense, yet without it we lack challenge, lose connection to ourselves and others, and at least figuratively, wither and die.

There are many different types and degrees of conflict. Some of us are good at withstanding certain kinds and terrible at others. The same person who can pacify an angry boss, may not be capable of doing the same with a frustrated toddler, a soldier who thrives in armed conflict may not be well versed in the verbal version. Sometimes conflict is thrust on us by chance or against our will – new parents of triplets, victims of rape, draftees into war – more often we create our own.

We tend to see all conflict as negative yet sometimes it forces us to reevaluate ourselves and take a better job or get a higher education. Every day, somewhere, someone turns a near death experience into enlightenment – a non-profit to help others, a new lease on a life previously unlived – but only if they have the skills to manage conflict and solve problems. Some skills are innate, some come from upbringing, many can be learned, you can probably name many of them: self-observation, self-awareness, common sense, empathy, creativity, the capacity to take personal responsibility, self-respect, respect for others, open-mindedness, integrity, the ability to spot behavioral patterns, among others.

Conflict is a slippery, elusive creature, but it’s one we should all get to know better. Understanding the nature of conflict and our personal relationship to it might allow us to tame it a bit, or at least work with rather than against it. There is so much conflict interwoven throughout life that if we could harness the energy we might single-handedly light up a small city or launch something into space. How good we are at utilizing and mitigating conflict can dictate the quality of our lives.

For me, as a mother and family member, conflict management means navigating the minefield of differing needs, wants and opinions on a relentless and ongoing basis. As a self-defense instructor, conflict management is the crux. To teach self-defense without conflict management is to teach a person what to do when they get into a car accident without mentioning how to avoid the accident to begin with, or how to avoid making things worse after the fact. And like many car accidents, quite a bit of conflict can be avoided if spotted early on and managed properly.

But, how does one become a Conflict Manager?

We can start by simply acknowledging conflict as a subject worthy of discussion and learning. Conflict 101 isn’t a subject along side math, at least not until higher education which is really too long to wait. Managing life’s constant conflict seems to be another one of those things like taxes and financing homes and cars that we are just supposed to innately understand without much formal learning. And like those other things, unless we are lucky enough to have a good mentor, it gets us into lots of trouble before we acquire a real understanding of how it works. So look conflict in the face, let it know you know it’s there. Expect it each and every day rather than losing your cool when it shows up unannounced. Remember the definition of insanity and catch yourself asking, “Why do these things keep happening to me?”

After we have accepted that there is no way to eliminate conflict from life, we can aspire to become Conflict Managers, people who use conflict to create opportunities or at least mitigate disaster rather than adding to it. We can begin by cultivating the aforementioned skills and also by learning how to reframe the most familiar kinds of conflict, rather than allowing the first shock of an event to control our ongoing view.

As a child homework was a task of nightmarish proportions for me. There was something about the idea of someone I often didn’t agree with giving me work I didn’t see the merit in and adding a deadline as insult to the injury. My stomach tightened, my brain shut down, I couldn’t find the answers to the simplest questions. Conversely, if the work was for extra credit, even if it was six times more difficult, it was a breeze and done instantly. This is a classic example of the difference a change of perspective can make. (I unfortunately did not learn to reframe homework as extra credit work in time to get a 4.0.)

How we frame things dictates which parts of our creative and analytical brains are accessed. I’m not implying that we should be turning a diagnosis of illness or job loss into a cause for celebration – it isn’t always possible to turn lemons into lemonade ­- but we can sometimes “think” our tastebuds into ignoring a certain amount of bitterness while remembering there is at least some benefit to the vitamin C in lemons.

Steven Covey talks about paradigm shifts in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. He describes being on a subway surrounded by a band of loud, unruly kids, their dad sitting quietly by, allowing the chaos to disrupt other people’s lives. Covey finally says something to the man and finds out the man’s wife – the children’s mother has just died of an extended illness. They are all exorcizing their shock in different ways. This realization causes Covey to reframe his annoyance. Now he wants to help.

I am an advocate of playing chess. Encourage your kids to play chess early on and equate chess’ competitive and multi-faceted decision-making process to life whenever you can. Chess exercises strategic thinking and the ability to see patterns. Though chess players are not automatically the best at interpersonal skills or even the most adept conflict managers, I do believe there is a way to use chess as an analogy for life’s conflicts and as a tool for bettering our ability to make choices by projecting outcomes. But the connection needs to be made.

Like any other skill set, you’ll improve the more attention you train on your personal relationship to conflict. Observe yourself in conflicts of all kinds and start asking questions. In a way, it’s like a map. I’m here, I want to get over in this general vicinity, I do not want to pass through this neighborhood on my way. How do I get there?

Living itself is an act of perseverance. By definition, perseverance means withstanding an ongoing barrage of undisclosed miscellaneous types of conflict in pursuance of a goal. I might actually go so far as to describe life as the mastery of conflict.

Reality, Belief and Tribalism – Rory Miller

There are very few facts. There are very few truths. There may be one best way to do a thing, but in an infinite universe the odds that your way is the best way is, roughly, zero.

There are very few facts, and no one gets emotional about facts. Diamond scratches talc, never does talc scratch a diamond. Longer levers increase power but cost distance. 2+2=4 (for all normal values of 2 and 4. That’s a math joke.)

Anyone have an emotional reaction to 2+2=4? Anyone? Nope. You may have an emotional reaction to the person writing the equation on the chalkboard. You may have such an intense reaction that you want the equation to be wrong, but there is no reaction to the equation itself.

So, rule number one: There is no feeling associated with truth. If you feel sure the only thing you can be certain of is that you don’t know. You can feel sure that your politics are righteous or that your religion is truth or that your system is best, but as long as you feel that way you know it is NOT an objective truth.

And our lives are filled with things we do not and cannot know. Not just the BS Philosophy 101 questions of “Do you really know if the sun will rise tomorrow?” Important stuff. You don’t know what anyone really thinks about you. You probably aren’t even aware of the differences between the values you feel and the ones you express in action. You don’t know who you will be under certain stresses.

And people hate being uncertain. Unknown is unsafe. Freedom is a nice idea, but historically people piss away freedom in a heartbeat if someone will offer security.

So, rule number two: People are uncomfortable-to-terrified by uncertainty and they are surrounded by it at all times.

This problem is compounded in martial arts and self-defense. At the high end of the conflict spectrum, there is a lot less experience. Everyone has been in an argument, far fewer have been in an argument that escalated to blows. Even fewer have been targeted by a predator or been required to use deadly force or participated in a riot. Some people spend years in martial arts, studying what to do if attacked. And they have no idea– it is impossible to know the first time– what they will actually do if attacked. You can tell yourself anything you want but until you pull a trigger, you cannot know if you are capable of it.

This uncertainty compounds with the high stakes of life or death conflict. But it compounds with something else as well: identity. For better or worse, violence has achieved a level of mythic weight in our society. The “wisdom” of a “warrior” is held to be more profound than the wisdom of a father, mother or schoolteacher. It’s not more profound, it’s simply more rare. And thus easy to fake, but that’s for another essay.

But the idea of who we will be under pressure, in conflict, is a powerful aspect of our identity. The image in our own mind and other people’s minds of who we are. And if the conflict has only been imagined, a terrifyingly large chunk of that identity is also imaginary. If uncertainty is frightening, what level of fear and insecurity comes from the deep and denied knowledge that you don’t even know who you are? You are your own imaginary construct.

So, rule three: People like to feel sure, even if they can’t be sure. And the best way to feel sure is to surround yourself with people who agree with you and shun the people who make you question your beliefs. This is the first step into the insular world of “tribalism disguised as truth.”

It’s a sneaky worldview. You feel sure. You are surrounded by people who sound sure. The only evidence you hear confirms what you already know to be true. If someone with a different point of view somehow strays into your territory, the tribe has more than enough voices to shout her down, and if you can’t win on logic, you can win on volume (because lots of loud people equals consensus, right?) or you can always drive her away with personal attacks. And ad hominem is always harder to see when you are the one using it.

You never listen to what your opponents say, you listen to what your friends say your opponents say… and those arguments are always easy to shut down.

With only a few tactics, you can drive away words, opinions, or even facts that might challenge your tribal identity. Tribalism disguised as truth is a powerful and subtle thing.  http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

And there is a nobility to it. Patriotism is tribalism. Taking a stand against all comers for the good of the team is classically praiseworthy. “My country right or wrong.” Generally, surrounding yourself with a tribe suppresses doubt. I believe it actually suppresses the part of the brain that analyzes doubt. But when the doubts well up, loyalty is a virtuous way to slap them down. Not thinking, not challenging, is not only easier, it will be reinforced and praised by the tribe.

And all the while the tribe will insist that the tribe and only the tribe is smart, is logical, is beyond and above politics and emotion. “So say we all.”

http://thespeaker.co/group-acts-love-group-hate-motive-attribution-asymmetry-explained-nu-research/

Rule number four: Groupthink is rewarded and thinking for yourself is punished. It’s not always that simple. Tribalism is at its strongest when you believe that you are a persecuted minority. If everyone is out to get you, solidarity is even more important. Viciousness in defense of “the truth” is warranted. And with this attitude it is easy to see anyone trying to be reasonable as an enemy, offering unwelcome data as an attack, and the most reasonable possible debate as oppression and persecution.

And maybe that’s rule number 4.1: From the tribal point of view, anything that doesn’t confirm the preconception is seen as an attack and anyone who disagrees is seen as an oppressor. And that fully justifies the tribe in attacking and oppressing even more, in “self-defense.” In my experience, weak individuals or groups who get the tiniest bit of power become far more vicious bullies than strong people ever do.

So here’s rule #5, and it’s a sad and horrible thing: The truth has no tribe. There are a lot of reasons for that. First and foremost, tribalism is based on difference and there simply isn’t any difference in the truth. I teach that flurry attacks result in an O-O bounce so that the threat’s OODA loop never resets and he freezes. Richard Dmitri teaches “The Shredder.” Long ago, when a boxer tried to take me out I shot both forearms between his attacking fists in a triangle shape into the side of his neck. It was a flinch that came from nowhere, it worked beautifully, and I’ve been teaching it ever since. Tony Blauer had a genius idea, researched his ass off, and created SPEAR. Whatever our backgrounds, however we name things, there will always be a convergent evolution towards what works. Because bad tactics get people killed. So many of us will arrive at similar truths, and if everybody is teaching the same things, it gets really hard to say, “We’re better than you guys.”

But the tribalism needs to say it. So if the techniques are same, you can focus on the research methods. Or the membership. Or the training methods. Or the buzzwords. To be different. And if you’re different enough you can call the other tribe wrong even if their stuff is just the same.

The second reason the truth has no tribe is because tribal identities are more powerful than individual identities and people who feel sure, in general, seem stronger than those who admit uncertainty.

It takes a lot of maturity? discipline? humility? to say, “I don’t know” or “I was wrong.” But the ability to say those words is the essence of seeking truth. It’s very hard to build a tribe around the embrace of ambiguity. Trust me– that’s exactly what I’m trying to do with CRGI (and that, right there, may be a sign of the tribal brain sneaking in).  But small numbers embracing doubt will always be at a disadvantage from big numbers embracing certainty.

Except– and this is an article of faith for me, I have no stats to back it up– except embracing doubt and seeking truth will most often have truth on it’s side. And I find that powerful. To quote Avi Nardia, “I’d rather be a student of Reality than a master of Illusion.”