Category: Societal Smarts

What Counts As Primary Prevention? – Martha McCaughey and Jill Cremele

The 2014 White House Task Force on Sexual Assault on College Campuses has mandated that in order to continue to receive federal funding, colleges and universities must step up their game, including providing rape prevention education.  The 2014 “Not Alone” report outlines the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) public health model of sexual assault prevention, and reiterates the need for evidenced-based programming to combat rape and sexual assault. 

The CDC’s public health model defines the terms and levels of prevention, and articulates what “counts” as primary prevention – namely, bystander intervention training and psychoeducation to shift rape-supportive attitudes.  As we describe in detail elsewhere (see McCaughey & Cermele, 2015), despite the overwhelming evidence that self-defense (training and enacting it) works both to stop rape and to shift rape-supportive attitudes, the CDC does not discuss or recommend self-defense training in its public health model. 

On the surface, the omission of self-defense training from the category of primary prevention is perplexing, considering the CDC’s own definition.  Primary prevention is defined as thwarting violence before it happens, while secondary prevention includes strategies and responses that immediately follow victimization, such as counseling or medical care, to address the short-term effects.  The CDC has consistently and openly argued that while teaching (often male) bystanders to intervene in and thwart sexual assault is an established primary prevention tactic, teaching women to intervene in and thwart sexual assault targeted against themselves is not.

This stance is flawed for two main reasons.  First, both self-defense training and bystander intervention training target sexual violence at the same point in time – when a sexual assault is imminent or in progress.  So while both meet the criteria for primary prevention, they differ on one important dimension:  who is encouraged to intervene.  Bystander training requires the presence of a (presumably) benevolent and engaged third party to thwart rape, contributing to the erroneous belief that the woman targeted for sexual violence cannot, or should not, intervene on her own behalf.

Self-defense training, on the other hand, disrupts the script of sexual violence by offering women a range of verbal and physical strategies to thwart rape, which, although it can include soliciting bystander intervention, does not require the presence of a bystander in order to prevent assault.  Given that both methods of rape prevention education target sexual violence at the same point in time, with the same goal and even potentially similar methods, it stands to reason that they must be in the same category – they are either both primary prevention, or neither are.

Second, only one of these meets the CDC’s second criteria, that rape prevention education be demonstrably effective – and that is self-defense training.  The data are clear—and reviewed in our article (McCaughey & Cermele, 2015)—that self-defense is effective in thwarting sexual assault.  In addition, numerous empirical studies have documented that self-defense training is what the CDC calls a protective factor, and that women who have taken self-defense training are at less risk for sexual assault than those who have not, reducing risk of sexual assault by as much as 40%. 

Furthermore, self-defense training creates positive behavior and attitude change, including feelings of empowerment in women.  Finally, women’s participation in self-defense training and the enactment of effective resistance strategies directly challenge the attitudes that permeate rape culture:  that the safety and integrity of women’s bodies exists at the whim of men’s bodies.  Women who learn to defend themselves learn to take themselves and their safety seriously in realistic ways, rather than simply following an unsubstantiated list of “don’ts” – don’t wear this, don’t go there, don’t be alone.  Instead, they assess situations better than they did before their training, are more likely to identify situations that could be dangerous, and have the skills to respond if necessary.

We also reviewed the data on bystander intervention training (see McCaughey & Cermele, 2015), which are much less promising.  There is some research demonstrating that participants in bystander intervention rape prevention education reported positive changes in attitudes and increased intent to intervene or increased self-reports of intervention.  However, there is as yet no empirical data to suggest that bystander intervention programs are effective in actually thwarting rape and sexual assault.  And yet, the CDC maintains its stance that bystander intervention training meets the criteria for primary prevention, and self-defense training does not.

This cannot continue.  By the CDC’s own criteria, training women in self-defense is a demonstrably effective primary-prevention strategy in preventing rape and sexual assault, and is entirely consistent with the goals of a public health model in combatting the crisis of sexual assault on college campuses.  At a time when so many organizations and task forces are looking to the CDC’s public health model for combating sexual assault, the CDC must begin to pay attention to the data and acknowledge women’s capacity for and right to resist sexual assault.  Self-defense training belongs at the forefront of their recommendations for sexual assault prevention on college campuses.

Citation: McCaughey, M., & Cermele, J. (2015).  Changing the hidden curriculum of campus rape prevention and education:  Women’s self-defense as a key protective factor for a public health model of prevention.  Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, online pre-print, 1-16.  DOI: 10.1177/1524838015611674 tva.sagepub.com

Jill Cermele is a professor of psychology and an affiliated faculty member of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at Drew University. Her scholarship, teaching, and activism are focused on gender and resistance, outcomes and perceptions of self-defense training, and issues of gender in mental health. With Martha McCaughey, she was a guest editor for the March 2014 special issue of Violence Against Women on Self-Defense Against Sexual Assault. McCaughey and she also write the blog See Jane Fight Back, where they provide commentary and analysis on popular press coverage of self-defense and women’s resistance.

Martha McCaughey is a professor of sociology and an affiliated faculty member of the Gender, Women’s, and Sexuality Studies Program at Appalachian State University. She is the author of Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women’s Self-Defense and The Caveman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the Debates Over Sex, Violence, and Science. With Jill Cermele, she guest edited the special issue of Violence Against Women on self-defense against sexual assault and blogs at See Jane Fight Back. www.seejanefightback.com

The article can also be found at http://seejanefightback.com/. 

Hive Mentality – Garry Smith

I will start with a confession. Before we had Bertie, our cute little Puggle, we had a Border Collie cross called Guinness. He was a lovely dog too and like Bertie used to like his walks. On one nice sunny day we were walking along a path in the Mayfield Valley and I noticed a large number of wasps coming in and out of a cavity in a tree. I am not sure why but I threw a stone into the cavity hitting the nest, guess what happened? Yes, out came the wasps and I made a run for it. The problem was Guinness did not.

The wasps caught up with Guinness, I tried swatting them off him with my hands but they, and there were a lot of them, began to crawl into his coat. I did what I could by getting him to a part of the nearby river that was deep enough and pushing him in. Hoping this would kill the wasps. They had already been on him for a couple of minutes and I had no clue as to whether they were stinging him. There were no signs that they were but he did slow down as we walked home.

I felt real guilt as my stupid actions had caused my dog possible suffering. The good part is after a nap on the lawn Guinness went about the rest of the day as normal.

The thing is I know about wasps, I know that like bees in a hive, they will swarm if they feel the hive is under attack let alone under actual attack. If you have seen bees swarm it is a pretty impressive sight and not something you want to provoke. Stings hurt and multiple stings hurt more. Insects, bees and wasps in this case, have no intellect, if attacked or if they think they are being attacked,

Swarming can also be the result of overcrowding in a successful hive so the hive splits and reproduces itself. This is different, these bees are looking for a new home. Our previous bees and wasps were looking to defend theirs, and for the insect mass attack is the best form of defence.

Whatever signal that triggers the attack these insect will sacrifice themselves in the process. Take a look at this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac20YWRjvrQ

Frightening stuff. The thing is people behave this way too. I am now going to reprint a book review I wrote for the February 2016 Conflict Manager on ‘The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind’ by Gustav Le Bon 1896.

I first came across this book in my studies at the University of Warwick in a class called Social and Political Movements taught by Professor Jim Beckford. Jim was a great tutor and a really nice guy to boot, his classes were always looked forward to although his rigorous analysis of ideas may upset some of today’s precious petals.

The first class looked at the work of Le Bon and his study of the psychological nature of crowds. I remember liking it at the time but feeling that it was just too much guess work and overtly influenced by the authors experience of a turbulent and frightening, for him,  period of French history. 


That was back in September 1990, much water has passed under the bridge since then, so why come back to it now?

Well it all comes back to a conversation I had with Rory Miller early in 2015 about ConCom and the triune brain when I mentioned Le Bon and his theory. Le Bon’s analysis is that once subsumed in a crowd an individual surrenders their individuality and a psychological mind is formed through contagion, emotions spread throughout the crowd and freed from individual responsibility the baser instincts take over. The individual ceases to think about the consequences of their actions as emotions take over and acts of both barbarity and heroism are possible.

Le Bon describes the ‘spinal cord’ as being in control and not the intellectually reasoning brain. 
 Ring any bells? Well it rang mine.

The thing is in the PC days of the 90’s this became a bit of an Aunt Sally, by the students that is, to be fair Jim used it in its historical context to begin a much wider and deeper exploration of the subject at hand. For the students, fresh out of some of the top schools in the UK, it was to be belittled, corny, out of date, lacking in evidence etc.

I was 31, I had been involved in a lot of crowd violence involving a full on riot with flaming barriers, thousands of people mobilised and hand to hand fighting with specially trained units of riot police, plus the occasional football riot, I thought differently. 


Though written in a voice from a different age and though the criticisms raised were in part valid, it was not enough to write it off as a whole, I thought all along there was something of value here.

In his book ‘The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt revives the work of several theorists who were also sacrificed at the stake of political correctness and shows how resulting evidence almost conclusively provides the evidence they lacked which allowed the ‘PC mob to grab their pitchforks and light their torches.

I am not claiming that much for Le Bon but he sure saw something the others did not want to see. 
There is another parallel I want to draw with Haidt’s work that also prompted me to go back to Le Bon, Le Bon was here first and Haidt never heard of him, or if he did he never recognised him. 
Maybe because Le Bon was lost in some pseudo academic backwater is what I would think, forgotten and unloved. However, I suggest you go get your free copy from Kindle now, read it, read it in the full and tell me that it does not describe how the world is today.

As I reread it I saw all the arguments, and candidates, in the forthcoming presidential election in the USA, it frames the rise of Islamic State, I will not prime you too much but this is a really interesting read. 
There are bits that lack intellectual rigour, it is more polemic than analysis and his biases are obvious, BUT, that is not a reason to ignore it. Go get a copy and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

So back to July 2016 and 220 years after Le Bon put forward his theory we see mobs rampaging in the USA as the presidential election continues to divide a people, we see racial tensions thrown into this mix too with black and white supremacists making capital from these divisions. Hate is spewing forth and emotions are incredibly high. Why are we surprised when the violence comes?

It comes as the mob mentality takes over, here the work of Le Bon seems as good an explanation as any other. Actual attacks on communities, even suspected attacks, in the currently overcharged atmosphere cause people to swarm and to sting their real or perceived enemies.

The mob was feared by Le Bon, he was frightened of the mob and its riots, but those riots were underpinned by revolutionary ideas that threatened the existing order. He was frightened by social change and in a time where execution by guillotine was in overdrive who can blame him.

I think we now have a phenomena worse than the mob as there appears to be no rationale behind most of these hate groups, be they the KKK, Westborough Baptists or Black Lives Matters, my observation from the much calmer side of the pond, is that they had rhetoric, now they are mostly spewing out hate and some of it is vile. Their existence is based on hate, pure and simple, and this hate spreads through the mob when it forms. Once one member of the mob triggers the others then the hive mentality takes over and the desire to sting infects all.

As I watch these groups ‘protest’ their behaviours continue to amaze me, do these people ever see themselves afterwards?  In her article in this issue my wife Karen Moxon Smith states “I have seen grown men cry when the CCTV shows them repeatedly kicking someone in the head when they honestly thought they had only acted lawfully”. When individuals lose control, and I have been there, they will commit acts they would be shocked at any other time, appalled even. I have been in mobs that once a victim goes down then the kicking starts and it goes on long after they are unconscious. Football violence is fuelled by many things, the desire of young men to fight, the consumption of alcohol, the intense tribal emotions and an othered enemy who are going to attack us. I have swarmed, I have attacked and I have hurt people and just because the supported a different team. Not politics or religion or race, football.

So I understand this from a subjective perspective as well as an objective one, I may be wrong, feel free to disagree, I welcome that but I have been there and done that. To non participants the shock of the hive attacking can be as frightening as for those actually attacked, especially when live are being taken now. Once you upset the hive and the bees come out it is almost impossible to get them back in.

We are, post event, and from the comfort of our armchairs, unable to comprehend this behaviour when we see it and one coping mechanism is to other those involved. They are not human, they cannot be, and from there it is one small step to dehumanising them, whoever they are. We, whoever we are, need to stop these people, we can only do so by banding together against them.

Can anyone hear a small buzzing sound or is it just me?

The thing I have not discussed and that really bothers me is that hive are really easily triggered. Social media today allows not just one hive to be triggered but multiple hives in multiple locations. Chaos can erupt real quick now and infection can be global in seconds. The massive threat is hate groups manipulating social media to trigger their own hives and this triggering the hives of opposing hate groups. They feed of one another. They feed of truths as much as they feed off lies and often nobody knows what is truth or lie.

The social infection can go viral incredibly quickly and there are many who, as Haidt shows very clearly, act instantaneously on emotion and then proceed to rationalise the emotion. As they say the first victim when war breaks out is the truth, for me the first victim when emotion breaks out is rationality.

Welcome to our brave new world. Or not.

Over herein the UK the electorate defied all the major political parties, all the major institutions, interfering foreign leaders and all the celeberities they wheeled out to tell us our future was better in the European Union, and we won. Brexit should become a reality in the next few years, those who supported Brexit were attacked mercilessly as biggots, little Englanders, ignorant, stupid and racist. The hive mentality was triggered and the stinging went on for weeks led by a fearful political class and the comfortable middle classes.

I mentioned hate groups from minorities earlier, well the biggest hate group is those who have the most invested in the system, the socio-economically comfortable and the people who do their bidding, they will drop their veneer of rationality and reasonableness when threatened and they will swarm. The hive mentality has a wider reach than we thought.

References

Jonathan Haidt, ‘The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics’, 2013.

Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind’, 1896.

Yuval Noah Harari, ‘Species, A Brief History of  Humankind, 2015.

The Threat of Violence: That Isn’t Really a Threat …, Part II – Marc MacYoung

Read part one

I guarantee you when you watch the video in chunks you’re going to see what we will be talking about now; especially because the people who are screaming loudest about the ‘victims of violence’ are often—if not overwhelmingly—the ones who are being the most violent and aggressive. They are using the threat of violence right up until the moment they lose the fight. Yes, you read that right. It’s a fight.  Not the one sided assault they planned on.

Then in a predictable strategy, they flip into victim mode. Not a loser, but a victim. But to sell this victim idea requires a little three-card monte with definitions and excuses. Specifically distracting you from their actions and focusing your attention on what someone else did.

For example, in the original story there was no mention of the alleged groping. That only appeared when it was pointed out that she hit someone before being pepper sprayed. Some sources overlook it while decrying the violence of the rally attendees. Still others mention the grope, but don’t  even show video of her claiming it happened. Why? In that video, there’s a significant lag between her accusation and the strike. Now mind you, this is just the accusation. There no released recording of the touch, in what context it happened or—if it happened— the time in-between touch and the accusation. (What don’t they want you to see?)

Basically, the story changes and is edited to maintain her victim status no matter what—in fact, it double downed on victimhood by playing the ‘sexual assault’ card. If you’re pulling a three-card monte and someone does bring up the hit, you can claim it was ‘self-defense’ over being groped. They’re not the violent ones. Just ask them. They’ll look you in the eye and tell you that.

This brings us to: What is violent behavior? Don’t answer that that yet. I’m about to melt your mind.

In my book In The Name of Self-Defense, I talk about the road of violence.  If you’re on this road, you’re being violent. The question is: How far down the road are you? I use this analogy to show the lower the number on the mile markers equal what you’re doing is subtle verbal and emotional violence. It gets louder and more aggressive as you go farther down the road (higher mile markers). You can be incredibly verbally and emotionally violent without ever throwing a punch. Then it gets to physical (even higher numbers). What a lot of people don’t realize is exactly how much more road there is past simple hits. It gets really ugly past that. (Remember, I’m the guy who asks, “How many parts was the body found in?”) This model doesn’t allow for three card monte with definitions. As much as people want it, there is no ‘past this point it’s violence and bad, but before then it’s not—so it’s okay.’ Or as I say, “It’s not on the road to violence. There is no ‘Violence City Limits’ or ‘Now entering Violence.’ If you’re on that road, it’s violence, plane and simple.”

I came up with this road idea because of deniers first declaring “violence is bad” and then excusing their own behavior. They deny they’re being violent through redefining violence to mean: Any level of force beyond which I am comfortable using to get what I want. Or it’s violence when the same level is used back against them (a.k.a., It all started when he hit me back). Hence my comment about ‘Violence City Limits’ They’ll speed up and down the lower mile markers, but as long as they don’t cross some subjective line they’re certain they are not being violent—no matter what they are doing, up to and including punching you.

When it’s laid out like this, you don’t have to be the sharpest crayon in the box to spot the BS of this position. When someone is pulling it on you, however, it can be a lot harder to spot. Well okay it’s more of a shock that someone can spit in your face then claim that wasn’t violence, but your reaction was. What’s amazing is how many people sincerely believe this. They don’t feel they are lying because this is their subjective truth. Their conviction is part of the con. But to truly get how this three card monte works, you need to know something.

Humans, as a species are amazingly nonviolent.

Forget all the hyperbole. We’re really not that violent. A comparison: After a lifetime of violence (including it being my profession), I can tell you that my cat has killed more, been in more life-and-death situations, and fights than me—or anyone reading this article.

See we humans are far, far better communicators. That’s why we can usually avoid using physical violence.

Having said that, we use the threat of violence all the time! Wait, what? To a species so strongly married to communication, the threat of violence is a lot more effective persuader than carrying through. Whether you call it threat displays or display aggression, we routinely communicate the threat of physical attack to people through body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, word choice, and behavior. Usually we only do this when we’re emotional, but always as a strategy to get what we want. When we’re yelling, making faces and swinging our arms, that’s not an attack. It’s saying, “I’m not attacking, but I might.” It’s the threat that violence is close. That is communication! Inherent in this threat is ‘unless you do what I want.’ Whether that’s stop what you’re doing, start doing what I want, go away, get back into your place or shut up; those depend on the goals of the individual doing the threatening, intimidation, or coercion.

This threat is usually a bluff to get the other person to fold. Violence is dangerous, and we could get hurt if things go physical. As such, we really don’t want to risk it. But in order for it to be an effective bluff, the person has to believe the danger is real and immediate. This bluff gets us the benefits of physical violence without having to actually do it. With the threat of violence being so significant, the road of violence takes on a whole new meaning. We’re ‘playing chicken’ down that stretch of road.

You would think this would be the sole domain of ignorant knuckle-draggers. It isn’t. Some of the worst offenders are people who claim to be intelligent, civilized, and nonviolent—but most of all passionate about a noble cause. That’s the loophole Gloria Steinem identified when she said, “From pacifist to terrorist, each person condemns violence—and then adds one cherished case in which it may be justified.”

Some will become aggressive at the wrong word. With this cherished cause as their justification, these bullies are wound up and just waiting for a green light to go off on someone. They’ll threaten you with physical violence as they verbally, emotionally, and socially attack you for your ‘wrong think.’ But as long as they don’t physically strike you, they’ll claim they weren’t being violent—no matter how much they acted as though they were about to become physically violent. Violence is bad, and they can’t be violent because they’re good people. (Besides even if they cross that line, they’re doing it in the name of a good cause.)

This hostile and threatening behavior is what you’re going to be seeing in the five-second chunks. (Remember them?) These chunks reveal a heavy reliance on the threat of violence. They’ll also destroy the credibility of the denial and victimization. Threatening violence … it’s a simple concept, but damn is it an important one.

But let me add another caveat here. While the threat of violence is usually more effective than actual violence in the civilized world, denying you’re doing it is a big part of the strategy. This denial is a very big part of what makes this crazy-making behavior (gaslighting if you know the term). Sometimes they actually believe they’re not being violent. Most of the time, they’re so emotional they don’t care. Sometimes there is deliberate malice hiding behind the righteous cause. They know exactly what they are doing, and they’re getting off on it.

People who routinely use this strategy—simply stated—are bullying. They’re using the threat of violence to get their way. As such, they have to engage in aggressive and hostile behavior to be credible. For the strategy to work, they have to look like they really do mean to attack (usually by acting out of control). You have to believe you are about to be attacked. At the same time, they’re walking a very fine line. A line consisting of four issues:

One, they have to very selective who they use it on. Basically, these bullies know not to pull these aggressive acts on people who won’t wait for it to reach self-defense before acting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) members will paint bomb rich women wearing fur coats, but they have a consistent track record of not trying the same on bikers in leather jackets. They know they are playing outside to rules of society

Two, it’s a fine balancing act between looking like you’re going to attack and going too far. When the threat doesn’t work, often the response is to turn up the volume. Often this increased intimidation works; people back down and let them have their way.

At the same time, they often goof, crank it up too much and WHAM! The increased hostility either
 a) convinces the target there’s an immediate danger (and he reacts out of perceived self-defense) or
 b) the aggressor crosses the line.

Thing about the last is they really have pushed it too far. While a biker will punch you quick, you have to work to get slugged by a Lutheran minister. People have their limits.

Three is … well … weird. That’s how often these bullies actually attack. The reason it’s weird is it’s more of a bluff. It is not a committed or continuing attack It’s not intending to injure. It’s an escalation of threat. Their strike is more of a “See? See how far I am willing to go? I’ll attack again if you don’t _____ (fill in the blank)!”

Look at the protestor in the videos. After yelling and aggressing didn’t work, she hit. But she didn’t continue or blitz the person she attacked. This gave the sprayer time to raise, aim and fire.

Four, they get out of there before the cops are called or the folks turn against them. Generally speaking, the real virtue points of this behavior occur when the person skeddadles back to the social group that supports this behavior. There over flasks of organic microbrew beer or vegan wine, they regale other social justice warriors with the tale of their bravery, fearsome foes overcome, and great injustices battled. While that sounds silly, remember many of them do consider themselves ‘warriors.’ Just like gang members boasting about drive-by shootings, there’s a lot of status gained and bragging rights over these acts. Although in some circles getting arrested for the cause is a coup for one’s status as it shows your dedication.

This brings us to an interesting crossroads. While you will never hear a peep about this behavior when the threatening works—oh is there a wailing and gnashing of teeth when there is a violent response. Now they are martyrs for the cause. Except unlike real martyrs, they don’t die. They switch into victim mode. It is essential when their hostility backfires that the bully quickly changes the narrative into how he or she is the victim of unjust violence … ad nauseam. If it’s not them banging the drum, it’s someone else wailing about the violence their enemies are capable. (An innocent fifteen-year-old girl was groped and pepper sprayed by  those evil . . .) This lends righteousness and outrage to their cause. It’s also very important you be prepared for this flip.

Despite doing everything in their power to convince you they were about to attack you—if you respond physically, you are the bad guy for believing their actions. Another version is they that weren’t threatening you, they were just expressing their opinions. You are not only condemned for not knowing they weren’t going to attack, but now you interfered with their freedom of speech. But most of all, neither you—nor anyone else—is supposed to notice they were attempting to intimidate you through the threat of physical violence and that especially means the cop arresting you.

Recognize the game they are playing. If you don’t react, they get to abuse you. If they can bait you into reacting they win. That is why you have to be able to counter the accusations that you attacked them. You have to be able to articulate why their behavior led you to reasonably believe they were attacking. I hope that in teaching you how I do violence reconstruction, I’ve armed you against this strategy.

This is why it is critical to call them on their use of violence and their constant threat of violence. If that person’s behavior is critically reviewed (like say in five-second chunks), it quickly becomes obvious there is a disconnect between the victim narrative and what actually happened.

Although I’ve ruined the incident used in this article, they’re easy to find. Now that you have this process, go out and watch some other videos. You’ll see how often bullying and threatening violence are used by those outraged about violence. When you can do that, you’ll start seeing that gorilla walking across the screen and just smile instead of punching it.

 

The Threat of Violence: That Isn’t Really a Threat …,, Part I – Marc MacYoung

Part of the Derailing Social Justice Bullies series

There’s a new breed of bully out there.

 The best summation is he or she is a religious fanatic, but over secular not theological ideologies. Whether you call them crusades or jihads, many of these folks are on an attack campaign to spread their beliefs. These true believers are going to force others to convert to the zealot’s superior ideals, morality, beliefs, and dogmas—or be dominated by them. Theirs is a righteous cause, a new morality, a utopia of compassion, tolerance, and equality. You will conform to these ideals. I’ll show you not only how they use violence, but the threat of violence to intimidate and bully you.

Just so you know although their ‘official enemy’ are those who think differently, their favorite target are those who think like them—but are not orthodox enough. (Google the term, “struggle session.”) Just because you might share some of the same ideas doesn’t mean you won’t be bullied by these tactics.

While verbal and emotional abuse are their most common behavior committing physical violence in the name of their righteous cause isn’t off the table. But here’s a modern twist: A common tactic of these secular fanatics is to physically attack while either screaming they are ‘the victim’ or denying that they are attacking. More than that if you react to their violence—you are the bad guy.

This is a series of articles about how to handle their preferred tactics, starting with threatening you with violence. In case you don’t know, I am a U.S. court-recognized expert in violence reconstruction. In this article, I’m going to share with you part of the process I use to analyze what happened in a case—specifically the threat of and lead up to physical violence. (You’re getting tricks of the trade here, Buckaroo.)

Here’s a homework assignment: Go watch videos of violent confrontations—but with this process in place. Since this is an election year (in the U.S.), the headlines are screaming about peaceful protestors being attacked and victimized. One of my favorites is the poor innocent fifteen-year-old who was sexually assaulted and then pepper sprayed while peacefully protesting at a political rally. There are a lot of people who are really angry about this innocent child being abused this way. But is that what really what happened? We can actually check it against video. In doing so, we can practice the analysis process I’m about to show you.

Step one in this process find the longest, uncut, raw video you can of the incident itself. Often shorter versions have undergone creative editing (to support steps two and three). But also know two thirty-second videos can—through editing—emphasize different things. There’s a common ten seconds, but this one has the twenty seconds before and that one has twenty seconds after.

Going to the MSNBC Web page, the version they present of the pepper spray incident is twenty-five seconds. While the raw footage doesn’t support the allegation of sexual assault, it makes it look like the spraying came out of nowhere. (The poor innocent child!)

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/video-of-pepper-spray-incident-outside-trump-rally-655071811863

Here are two longer versions (and extra angles):

http://usuncut.com/politics/watch-trump-supporter-pepper-sprays-teenage-girl-video/

This is thirty seconds and focuses less on the aftermath and more on what happened before incident—like her getting in people’s faces and striking someone before being pepper sprayed.

While:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/30/3764717/trump-wisconsin-pepper-spray/

Has thirty-second and twenty-second videos. Both with extra emphasis on the aftermath of her tearfully walking away.

When it comes to video, longer and uncut is better. But you can piece together a more overall knowledge by looking at different edits and versions. It’s like reading about the same incident from several different—and diverse—news sources. You get a better overview.

Steps two and three of the process are critical for several reasons. The biggest is because the way our brains work words and vision are closely linked in what we perceive. (That’s why TV and movies are so powerful.) This word and image combination literally creates our ‘reality.’ We are very susceptible to words influencing what we can see. I would say perception, but words ‘blind us’ to what we can see. It’s part of what is called selective attention.

Here’s a little test you can take…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

(Or Google: Selective attention, basketball, video—and take the test) Go ahead, do it before you read on. G’head, g’head.

If you took that test, you’ll now understand why steps two and three are critical.

Step two is skip the headlines, taglines, titles, pundits, and reading the article before you watch the video. Go straight to the video. You want raw, unedited video before words. This is important because often these other sources—especially headlines—support the narrative they want you to believe and that the video is edited toward. That’s a very powerful combo, influencing not just what you think you saw, but your ability to later change your mind in the presence of new information. (It’s possible, but it’s hard.) The headline of the Think Progressive article spins ‘a child is sexually assaulted then further victimized’ narrative as the set up for the rest of a ‘what evil, violent, rat bastards those guys are’ article. Once that idea is planted, it’s hard to see what really happens on the video.

Step three is the must do. In fact, it’s so important, I’m going to make it a stand alone paragraph …

Watch the video for first time (or maybe the first few times) with the sound off!

The reasons for this are legion. One of which—especially in these days of cell phone videos—is often the cameraman provides a running commentary (assuming that the cameraman isn’t screaming, “Kick his ass!”) He’s telling you what you are seeing and where to look. Way too often this commentary keeps you from seeing the gorilla. (If you took the selective attention test, you’ll understand.)

Two is even without narration, the screaming, yellin,’ and bellerin’ will distract you from the physical actions of the participants. Remember, emotions are contagious. If you hear someone screaming in anger—even on video—you’re going to get excited and miss important visual details. More than that, we tend to look at the face of the person we’re listening to. So you tend to focus on the screamer’s face not the physical actions of that person or others. Again, it’s that damned gorilla you don’t notice.

Three, is mute helps prevent you from rooting for one side over the other.

Those are just some of the reasons why ‘no sound the first time’ is critical. Focus on the physical action. Do it without being emotionally invested, judgmental, or biased.

Step four is watch it again with the sound on (or read the article). I should warn you—odds are you’re going to experience cognitive dissonance.

You’ve seen the video. What we’ve done at this point is immunized ourselves from being told what we saw. (As opposed to being told what you’re about to see or are seeing.) We’ve broken that operant conditioning and selective attention trick. Way too often you’re going to read the article, comments, etc., and wonder “how the hell can someone get that version” out of what you just saw.

Using that video of the pepper spraying as the example, which version tracks better with what you saw:

1.)”After being sexually assaulted at a rally, a fifteen-year-old girl was pepper sprayed by a supporter” or…

2.) “She was aggressing against people, her friends were trying to hold her back, she punched someone and got sprayed, then she walked away.”?

We’ve seen things that cannot be unseen. We’ve kept words from establishing a bias or narrative. Then again, you’ll usually end up watching it again to try to find the basis of the words. (“She was groped.”) Where the hell is that supposed to have happened? You’ve also seen things that are going to be a whole lot harder to explain away—like her hitting someone before being sprayed. (“Well the reason she hit was she was groped.” “That’s not what I saw happen.”) More than that, you’ll be able to articulate what you did see—especially if you take the next step.

Step five—especially if you’ll be arguing with people about it (remember I deal with lawyers)—is break the video into five-second chunks and watch them a few times.

What is happening in that five-second chunk? Not what is going to happen. Look closely at what is happening. You analyze what actions and circumstances you see in that particular chunk. As you watch these chunks over and over put your attention on different things. (One time watch his right hand, next time his left. Now do the same with the other person.) Watch for what is there just as much as what is not there.

When you do this, three things happen. One, you will usually find what happened is way different than the story of what happened. If the story is true certain things will be on the video. If not, question the story. For example, that she was ‘groped’ before she was pepper sprayed. Really? You know what? There are certain common reactions a woman has when she’s groped—especially when her reaction involves hitting someone. They happen fast and without thought. Watch any of those videos for the reactions and timing you think would be there.

Two, you’ll see even more details about the situation that you didn’t see before. For example, the expression on her face combined with the body movement that indicates she was hitting someone. What’s interesting about that is we unconsciously clench our jaws when we physically attack. If we expect a counter attack (or are being attacked), we drop our jaw to protect our throats. If we don’t, we thrust our chins out as if to bite. Look at where her jaw is.

Three is how often the supposed ‘victim’ was using the threat of violence to bully, intimidate, and coerce—and it backfired. Or that the so-called ‘victim’ was physically violent first. Not defense, the person attacked first.

“Uhhhh. Wait a minute … what?” Yeah. This is a biggie. The reason I used this protest video as an example is this is exactly what happens. She was aggressing, threatening, and physically attacked first—yet she’s being presented as the victim.

(As a follow up, I’ve since seen a longer clip. One that starts earlier. She does accuse someone [“You”] of groping her. But there is a five to ten second delay before she throws the punch. This delay takes it out of the realm of immediate defensive action—self-defense— and makes it a deliberate and separate attack.)

Tribalism – Garry Smith

There are may definitions of what constitutes tribalism out there and I chose the Cambridge Dictionaries Online one for its simplicity and clarity. I needed something workable, not overcomplicated, as a lens to look at the martial arts/self defence world through So here is the definition from CDO.

1 The state of existing as a tribe, or a very strong feeling of loyalty to your tribe.

2 A very strong feeling of loyalty to a political or social group, so that you support them whatever they do.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tribalism

Recently I have had a few long chats with fellow school owners in other pats of the UK about the extent of tribalism that seems endemic in the industry. They, like I, continually try to stay away from getting sucked into it. The strap line of this magazine, truth not tribalism, guides my thinking. I know of many people who are involved in disputes and feuds with other practitioners on all sorts of issues, very public ones too and they all too often degenerate into ya boo name calling. Friends join in, tribes form, the othering starts and off we go.

Just look at America tearing itself apart as righteous indignation fuelled by emotions that  ignites conflict between Republican and Democrat, and we are still in the primaries. In the UK we have a referendum soon on our membership of the EU and it will get messy here too soon. No surprises here, as explained in ‘The Righteous Mind’, (Heidt 2012), we find it hard to get along with ‘others’ who think differently than us because our minds are designed to be moral. Not only that, we are hard-wired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous, we are right, you are wrong. It is a carry over from the millions of years of living in tribes, starting with small family groups of hominids, and growing into larger and larger groups over millennia.

In his book Sapiens, (Harari 2011/14), argues it is the innate and uniquely human ability to create imagined realities that then manifest themselves in norms and values that underpins our tendency towards tribalism. Nothing is real, not in the sense that all aspects of all societies are social constructs. As societies and cultures evolved overtime even peoples living in similar ecological conditions  created very different imagined realities that manifested themselves in different norms and values.

Take this alongside our biological evolution as sapiens spread throughout the world, staying one species, but through a mixture of natural selection, mutation and adaptation we gradually grew to look different too, we then had ‘races’ adding to the mix, lets throw in class and gender or it will just get too big. The  combination of biological and cultural evolution is much debated in anthropology but if we stay with the general view that each fed off the other it helps us see how throughout the growth of human populations, however they were socially organised, hunter gatherers, agricultural, industrial and post industrial, we have remained tribal. We still have our shamans, totems and talismen today they just take on different forms, so it should not surprise us that we find it easy to form tribal views with the accompanying feelings of loyalty and belonging whatever the tribe does.

If we fast forward today as societies fragment into ever smaller social groups we see a resurgence, I would argue, in tribalism. The great isms of the last century caused the loss of hundreds of millions of lives as people rallied to their totems and fought for the rights that their tribe supported, all imagined realities.

In with fascism, communism and capitalism we can include the ‘great’ religions and when one overlays the other it becomes an intricate ideological web. We are all there somewhere in that web, I have a joke I share with my Catholic friends, I remind them that whilst I am an atheist, I am a protestant atheist. My background, my past, my experiences are influenced by my past including the choices I have made influencing the choices I have to make. The culture I grew up in, that I have inculcated, plays its part through the strength of attachment each of us feels through our shared values and norms. Of course the shared subscription to our imagined realities, invisible to most people is what makes this possible, these are incredibly powerful forces.

This meme from the internet links what we do with one imagined reality, I use this one as most of my heritage is more than likely Anglo Saxon, any other would do along with the whatever selective creation myth we may or not subscribe to.

wyro

I wrote in January’s CM about the interaction of past,present and future. They are inextricably linked and our awareness of who we are, where we are going, who with, why etc. will develop if we acknowledge this. A web of fate is as good a description as any other for now.

Most people do not like the above as it is too abstract a thought, the world does not just exist of subjective meaning devoid of objective reality. Of course there are objective realities, I sit on a chair at a desk typing on a laptop inside a house, I can see and feel them, they are real objects and I am surrounded by tens of thousands of other objects, they are real. Well this is no problem for us, objective realities are related to imagined realities. It reminds me of my studies in sociology when we looked at Marx’s base v superstructure model.

 

structure

Marx was interested in the interaction between the base and superstructure in order to analyse the structure of a given society and the social structures that proliferate from that structure.

“Superstructure, quite simply and expansively, refers to all other aspects of society. It includes culture, ideology (world views, ideas, values, and beliefs), norms and expectations, identities that people inhabit, social institutions (education, religion, media, family, among others), the political structure, and the state (the political apparatus that governs society). Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of the base, and reflects the interests of the ruling class that controls the base. As such, it justifies how the base operates, and the power of the ruling class.

From a sociological standpoint, it’s important to recognize that neither the base nor the superstructure are naturally occurring, nor are they static.

They are both social creations (created by people in a society), and both are the accumulation of social processes and interactions between people that are constantly playing out, shifting, and evolving.”

http://sociology.about.com/od/Key-Theoretical-Concepts/fl/Base-and-Superstructure.htm

I use it simply to demonstrate the complex relationships that do exist but I err towards the dominance of thought over matter, I think Marx got it partly right, I think the evidence that has emerged since he constructed his model would expand what he was claiming and whatever the structure, human thought was the root not the thinking and ideology of one class..

That the base and superstructure influence  one another is accepted but the origins of ideas in primitive societies, beginning with the emergence of animism, but before that with the emergence of consciousness itself is not part of the model. Vast improvements in scientific methods, the codification of the human genome and other recent rapid advances have brought biological explanations for human behaviour back to the fore.

As the genus Homo experienced significant changes in brain size, architecture, as our environment changed and different forms of social organisations and diet change they all combined to accelerate the process of evolution to eventually produce, via natural selection “a new kind of animal. It transformed into an animal who sets arbitrary standards of behaviour on what is considered to be right and wrong.” (Leakey 1994). Sapiens.

It has been a long journey of discovery to get us to this point but my meanderings above are necessary to help me get a handle on the behaviour of my peers. What causes, grown men, mostly, to indulge in spiteful name calling, in public via social media for instance? My system is better than your system, my style better than yours, your rank meaningless whilst my lineage is pure…..

People fight over the value of awards ceremonies, politics abound and in the end the sum result is we are all the lesser for it happening.

The best thing is most of those involved adhere to warrior codes that are better than those of their foes, they claim to be rising above the argument whilst sinking deeper into the mire, they gather sycophant supporters who all reassure one another they are all wonderful people whilst but the other side are not. It is tribalism writ large.

Yes we all see obvious fakes, the proponents of empty force for instance, the con merchants. We see people with numerous dan grades, some they earned others awarded by mates, or worse still bought. We all know this happens. Does it stop us doing what we do?

The answer should be no, the answer should be well actually it makes me redouble my efforts to become the best I can so that I can better help others become better than me. Getting bogged down in tribalism, sticking to the tribal view whatever the tribe does, is a destructive process. It is a downhill struggle as rather than concentrating on what you are doing, possibly within your own tribe, interacting with others and seeking knew knowledge, you sink into the trap of defining yourself by what your enemy does not do rather than what you do.

The focus shifts from developing a clear and coherent training experience underpinned with principles based teaching, to a we are better that them offer. Your tribe members will support you, like you on FB, cheer you to the echo but this has no value outside your tribe. Emotions get triggered all the way through this and as I see the feuds develop, and sometimes spread, you can see emotions fanning the flames, Just like the fire triangle with heat, fuel, oxygen on 3 sides, replace this with emotion, social media and tribalism and you can smell conflict in the air before you see the flames.

Everything you are arguing about has no objective reality they are ideas. They are ideas that have originated in our unique ability to create imagined realities, your imagined realities are based on your past and your present and an infinite number of potential variables including the  long evolutionary journey of your ancestors and all their thoughts, experiences and choices made. When tribalism dominates the mindset of a social group, whatever the group does then we have a form of group-think and individuals get lost  and the process controls the tribe instead of the other way round.

I will say for the record tribes are cool, I belong to many and some overlap. I have tried to show that this need to belong is so deeply rooted in us that it is practically undeniable.

But tribalism is a problem, in my opinion, tribes exist only by comparison to other tribes who are different. If what you do is all fine and dandy and the best there can be, then those different tribes out there must be getting something wrong. Ignore them, it will have no baring on what you do, better still, talk to them and if you can share some things do so, if not part in peace. If you do see yourself as a warrior, I do not for the record, if you claim to have a code of conduct, I do not for the record, then follow it. Try not to become a massive cockwomble in public because your emotions pour out all over social media and expose your tribalism.

 

 

 

 

 

When it Comes to the Rules, Social Classes Matter – Erik Kondo

The human world is based around rules. For society, these rules come in the form of laws and regulations governing peoples’ behavior. For individuals, these rules are based on how we want others to behave toward us. And also a set of personal guidelines on how we should behave toward others.

Society’s rules come with a description of what constitutes the rule along with instructions on how the rule is to be enforced when violated. On the other hand, our personal set of behavioral rules are unclear. They are more or less based on our feelings. How these rules are communicated and enforced depends a lot upon the particular circumstances we find ourselves in. As a practical matter, for most of us, how we deal with our own rules is made up on the spot. We wing it. We play it by ear.

When it comes to society’s rules, we expect them to be enforced in a manner that is independent of gender, race, religion, social class, etc. We expect the rules to be fair to everyone regardless of “who” they are. But when it comes to our own rules, it is the exact opposite. Most of the time, we decide how we will enforce our own rules based on how we feel about the violator. And how we feel about someone is usually tied into their gender, race, religion, social class, etc. In fact, we deal with our own rules in the exact opposite manner that we expect society to handle its rules.

Most of our rules revolve around our personal sense of fairness and respect. We are very conscious of how other people treat us. We expect to be treated fairly and respectfully. When this doesn’t happen, we feel we have been violated. We now desire to enforce the violation. To what degree the violation is enforced depends upon to what degree we feel we have been violated and/or disrespected.
The problem is, that depending upon who we are dealing with, the very same event, can be perceived differently. People in more respected social classes are given more leeway than those in lower social classes. Lower social classes usually contain minorities, the poor, the less educated, people with disabilities, etc. Depending upon the situation, women can be in a lower class. Sometimes, they are in a higher class. Attractive people are usually placed in a higher class. Unattractive people are usually placed in a lower class. There can also be class distinction along tribal lines, where anyone outside the tribe is placed into a lower class.

When someone in a higher class commits a violation against someone in a lower class, the violation is seen as less severe. It is more likely that the violation will be perceived as unintended or a mis-understanding. The associated enforcement and punishment will be less. On the other hand, when someone in a lower class commits a violation against someone in a higher class, it is seen as a great injustice. It is less likely to be perceived as a mistake. It is more likely to be perceived as a deliberate violation deserving harsh punishment.

To put it plainly, people in higher classes get away with a lot more than those in lower classes. They are more lightly punished. Many are also quick to perceive themselves as being “disrespected” by someone in a lower class. Many of them are quick to be disrespectful of those in lower classes, but don’t notice their own transgressions.

When it comes to dealing with interpersonal conflicts, people in higher classes are usually able to “get away” with a lot more than those in lower classes. What works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everybody. Lower classes are more likely to receive a backlash from their personal enforcement actions. Particularly, if a lower class person is trying to enforce a violation from a higher class person.
Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that if you find yourself getting instruction on conflict management strategies and tactics, social classes matter.

If the instructor is in a higher class, what works for him or her may not work for you. He or she may be able to do and say things that are perceived differently than if you did or said the exact same thing. Sometimes, an action from one person may be perceived as appropriate enforcement and create the desired effect. But this very same action, from another person, may be perceived as Over-Enforcement and bring about an unwanted backlash.

When it comes to effective conflict management, it is critical to take into consideration the dynamics of social classes between the involved parties when assessing what type of response to make.

Rules Rule – Garry Smith

As a species we have evolved into the most rule governed of creatures. The other night my wife brought a couple of books home from work to check something for a case she had in court the next day, they were about 4 inches thick and heavily bound, Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences, 2 volumes full of complicated laws and this is just for traffic offences. I dread to think how vast a library is needed to house all the laws that govern life in the UK or any other nation for that matter. Then there is a whole industry that has grown around creating, maintaining and enforcing these laws.

All these laws have to be created and there are tens of thousands of civil servants, consultants, specialists in a cornucopia of industries and trades, academics and researchers too. Just think how many jobs are dependent on enforcing the laws, security personal, law enforcement officers, probation officers, solicitors, judges, prison officers. For all these people crime creates work, without lawbreakers what would we do.

Here we are talking about the the constitutional, civil and criminal laws that constitute the legal system in complex societies. These are rarely fixed but continually evolving as society evolves. A few years ago we knew little of drones, now drones are everywhere from the battlefield to the local park and so we need new laws to define how they can be used, who by, where and within what parameters. Then these new laws will need enforcing, we, I talk about the UK, have millions of articles of law on the statute books already, new laws are being introduced at a rate faster than we can get rid of old or out of date ones. There are so many laws they cannot be policed, it is impossible to police them all but we keep on thinking up new ones.

People break laws on an almost daily basis, look around, bet you see someone driving whilst using a phone, smoking in a company vehicle, parking illegally, using drugs illegally, I could go on. All around us crime is happening and nobody is doing anything about it. Most people will agree that for complex societies to function we need to have a legal framework, but most people will only obey the laws they want to obey and will ignore the ones they choose to because the odds of getting caught are slim.

Rules are not laws but also regulate behaviour, rules provide for a regularity of behaviour. Rules are social instructions that provide a framework for acceptable behaviours in social life, they are complex and evolving like laws but rather than imposed and enforced externally they are learned through the process of socialisation and internalised. In a narrower sense rule following is the production of a regularity in a person. They can choose to do other than follow the rule, they can exercise free will, but generally conformity is the easier route.

As a species we just love rules, our love of rules evolved with homo sapiens as they evolved biologically and culturally. Our early ancestors in all their primitive glory would have roamed the African savannah in small groups similar to troops of modern baboons, in simple societies simple rules will suffice, but throughout the millions of years of evolution our relationships with one another and with our world brought about many changes, some small but some vast and as bigger and more complex societies developed so did the need for more and more rules.

There are billions of interactions between billions of individuals every minute let alone everyday, rules and laws regulate these interactions on different levels, none of us even know how many rules we know or how they arose. Listening to the radio as I was ‘working’ earlier there was a guy on talking about etiquette, apparently you should keep three sets of bedding for each bed in the house, one in use, one ready for use and usually one in the wash…… Sounds good but we have 3 double beds and one single, that’s a lot of bedding.

Socialisation into the primitive world of early hominids would have most likely been like the socialisation of modern apes, very different to the socialisation of humans today process today.

I have been thinking a lot about this lately whilst watching our little dog Bertie. He is a cute little fellah but when we first got him when he was 8 months old, he used to shit and pee in the kitchen at night, he often stole socks and pants and chewed them, slippers were not safe with him around nor was toilet paper and an annoying habit of disappearing for ages whilst on walks.

So we gradually had to educate him on what we expected as appropriate behaviour, well it is not rocket science, we used the carrot and stick method, rewards with lots of praise when he did good, stern voice when he did bad. Fast forward a year later he is brilliant on walks, still running around sniffing everywhere but keeps an eye on where we are, we wake to a nice clean kitchen, he barks at us if he wants to go in the garden, rarely chews anything and he loves to play ball and he sits and waits next to his food until we give permission for him to eat. He is even cuter than before and he will tease to get attention. Whilst I work he curls up and sleeps in his bed.

Using the right tactics worked with Bertie, he cannot read because he is a dog, but he learned the rules. Tone of and volume of voice, gestures and facial expressions are associated with desired behaviour and the dog learns through repetition as he likes the praise and the treats and dislikes it when he is told off and ignored. As I said its not rocket science, a dog is a pack animal, Bertie just wants to be with the pack and has now found his place in it. He has been socialised.

He has internalised the simple set of codes necessary for him to be part of our society, he now understands, albeit in a simple fashion, the rules of the house. He knows life is good when he sticks to them and to all intents and purposes he has internalised the rules. We often do not need to command now as he knows by our behaviour what is about to happen and adapts his behaviour to suit. He predicts what is about to happen and the behaviours he has learned kick in.

Bertie is a primitive being living in a simple society. His socialisation emphasised the carrot over the stick, the process was probably a little more brutal for our ancestors millions of years ago. However subtle the process of socialisation it is a process of enforcement, it is where we begin to regulate behaviour be it in dogs or people.

Socialisation, often called acculturation, is the process where the culture of a society is transmitted to its children. This begins at from birth and teaches individuals to conform with the demands of social life and to inculcate the rules of their society. Primary socialisation takes place during childhood and largely within the family, whatever form that takes, and as the child is exposed to outsiders, the media, formal education, peers they begin to experience secondary socialisation into the wider world.

We sapiens exist in social groups and networks, we are social animals, we need to learn how to belong to and be accepted into social groups and networks and socialisation is the process that facilitates this. Where the process fails we end up with asocial people and the most obvious examples are feral children. “A feral child (also called wild child) is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has little or no experience of human care, behaviour, or, crucially, of human language. Some feral children have been confined by people (usually their own parents. Feral children are sometimes the subjects of folklore and legends, typically portrayed as having been raised by animals.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Here the exception proves the rule as having been denied socialisation they have been denied any reference to how humans behave and hence lack any social skills, feral children are rare but the examples I have read about make Bertie look like a sophisticated being.

Socialisation is the soft side of enforcement but it is an incredibly powerful force. Powerful but not completely controlling, if it were we would not be able to rebel against social norms and rules but we do. We would not be able to break laws but we do. It is all to do with the rigidity, or lack of, that drives the process of socialisation.

We are not taught how to socialise our young, we just do, so within a society that has become complex and many social variables exist so will the process of socialisation vary too. Think about the society you live in and the many cultures and sub-cultures that co-exist within it. Social reproduction is necessary for the longevity of a culture but cultural harmony is a myth that occasionally erupts into hate between different sub-cultures but that is for another day.

For now we need to understand the subtlety of enforcement through socialisation as it is far more cost effective for there to be a policemen inside our own heads than one on every street corner.

In order to navigate our way through social life successfully we move in and out of multiple roles a day, each role will be performed in a different setting with its own hierarchy and rules, to do this the human mind has evolved into a super computer capable of millions of independent thoughts, programs and simulations that it runs constantly. The ability to imagine different actions and outcomes and predict possible futures is a skill our species excels at. We know the rules, we can choose to break them, whether we do will depend on the chances of somebodies ability to enforce the rules, social sanctions like not being respected are a problem but being deprived of our liberty and even life can be on the table.

Variety is said to be the spice of life but beware the danger of externalising your set of laws and rules out to the rest of the world, what is sacred to your tribe may be profane to another tribe. We may share a common ancestor but we do not share common cultural practices, customs or beliefs. Human and social evolution have intertwined over millions of years, and over those millions of years we remained little more than intelligent animals, with the agricultural, industrial and technological revolutions there came massive cultural advances and the small bands that may have occasionally clashed over resources in the African savannah became capable of warfare on an industrial scale and beyond.

The veneer of social sophistication hides the deeply ingrained human ability to use violence as a tool. Despite all the violence is bad messages we are given throughout childhood and beyond we still see how those in power legitimise a monopoly of the use of violence in the name of social order and we acquiesce. Think of this the next time you step onto the mat, think of this the next time you feel anger when some driver carves you up, think of this too. Society is a social construct, much of it has no objective reality, it exists only in our minds, a little like the matrix, but if you are told repeatedly that what are abstract ideas and thoughts are objectively real you will come to believe it. That is the power of the process of socialisation in ensuring that the process of social reproduction is supported and enforced.

Take a minute, think about it. You think about that all you like.

THE HAZARDS OF VOLUNTARY DOMESTICATION, PART. 1 – Mark Hatmaker

“We were wild animals for seven million years. We learned a lot of lessons. We should be careful not to lose them.”-Lee Child

Let’s keep that quote in mind as we compare a couple of definitions, the first—
Domesticated or Domestication, (from the Latin domesticus: “of the home”) is the cultivating or taming of a population of organisms in order to accentuate traits that are desirable to the cultivator or tamer.

For today’s lesson it is important that we hew closely to the scientific definition of this word. Merely finding a baby squirrel and keeping it as a pet is not by strict definition “domesticating” that animal, you are merely acculturating it to abnormal surroundings and there is a high probability that this “taming” will not survive sexual maturity. This is a lesson hard learned by chimpanzee and big cat owners, often what begins as an exercise in cuteness ends in the animal being what it is-wild. By the way, never the animal’s fault, it is merely being what it is-a wild animal.

Domestication by strict definition is a process of thousands of years or hundreds of bred-for generations to render a species more docile or yielding to human wishes.

A poetic but stark definition of domestication is the bred-for breaking of a species’ spirit over time to make us, the owner, happy.
The second word to be defined is Civilization.
We are not using the word in the broad sense of the combined progress and adaptation of social man to his environment, but rather, again, in a clinical sense. Man is not a domesticated animal in the strict sense of the word, as he was not purposely bred for tameness, as we have done with wolves to give us cute puppies, or predatory big cats that we have bred to be lazy window-sill nappers.
Man has never been subject to this strict purposeful breeding program so we are not domesticated, but voluntarily choose to be tame, or civilized. In this definition to be civilized is to voluntarily assume the mantle of a domesticated animal.

Man, in theory, can do what a dog or cat cannot do, we can revert to our wild state by choice. Yes, dogs can attack and cats can claw but no one will mistake their attempts at “wildness” for that of their ancestors. Man, on the other hand, can be just as wild as his primitive forebears as in essence he still walks around with the same body and the same brain that walked the savanna millions of years ago.

The same can’t be said for the Pekinese or Siamese at your feet begging for treats.
That bit of “Yeah, I’m a bad-ass caveman but I choose to be civilized and go all primal when I need to” may make some of us feel pretty fine indeed.
But is the choice of civilizing ourselves just a few shades off from domestication?
Just how quickly can we lose our primal abilities?

Let’s look outside our own species for a moment to another species, a highly intelligent one at that. Let’s see what happens when we remove it from the wild, attempt to tame it, and then do an about-face and attempt to free it back into the wild.

The below is from dolphin trainer Tom Foster’s account of trying to re-wild two wild dolphin, Tom and Misha, to prepare them for their release. [The following is from the excellent article “Born to Be Wild” by Tim Zimmerman in National Geographic 6/2015, pages 68-69.]

[Keep in mind the following account regards two wild animals that were born in the wild, captured and kept in captivity for a few years. These animals were not born in captivity.]

“…Foster didn’t see how he could restore Tom and Misha to the Olympic level of fitness they would need to survive in the ocean if he didn’t put them through a regimen of fast swims, jumps, and tail walks that would build muscle and stamina. ‘The only way is to train them so you can untrain them, he says.”
‘High-energy workouts require calories, so the first job was to overcome Tom and Misha’s picky eating habits and reacquaint them with the fish they would likely encounter in the Aegean, such as mullet, anchovies, and sardines. The strategy was to offer them a local fish species. If they ate it, they were rewarded with mackerel, a fish they developed a taste for in captivity. To mimic the unpredictability of food in the wild, Foster varied the amount and frequency of their meals. ‘When you bring them into captivity, everything from feeding to shows is very structured,’ he says. They develop a built-in clock and can tell exactly when they are going to get fed. We have to turn that around, because we know that in the wild they will eat more one day than another.’”

Now, I’m sure you’re way ahead of me by this point. A wild species that got fat and lazy due to a lack of exercise, regular meals, and finicky eating habits. Hmm? Sounds like we’re talking about…who?

OK, back to Tom and Misha two “civilized” dolphins, a creature of high intelligence with a remarkable cranial capacity (just like another species we know.)

“Foster also wanted to wake up their highly capable dolphin brains. He dropped into the pen things they may not have seen for years, like an octopus or a jellyfish or a crab. He cut holes along the length of a PVC tube, stuffed it full of dead fish, and then plunked it into the water. Tom and Misha had to figure out how to manipulate the tube so that the fish would pop out of the holes. ‘In captivity we train the animals not to think on their own, to shut down their brains and to do what we ask them to do,’ Foster explains. ‘What we are trying to do when we release them into the wild is get them off autopilot and thinking again.’”
Hmm? Brains on autopilot. Atrophied ability to think for themselves without predictable structure. We are talking about dolphins, right?

Allow me to call our attention again to Foster’s comment on how to “civilize” a wild animal: “In captivity we train the animals not to think on their own, to shut down their brains and to do what we ask them to do.”

So, to be clear it is absolutely possible to take a wild animal, even one as hyper-intelligent as a dolphin and to atrophy its physical and mental prowess with as little as a few years of captivity.

No, this is not domestication, not in any sense of the word…but the level of training required to wean a wild animal off of its civilization and to make it fit to be wild again is indeed food for thought.

A few years of civilization atrophied these animals’ natural abilities. What might a lifetime of civilization do? Generations?

Does voluntary civilization, and generations of it at that as opposed to one generation of catch and capture, compound the atrophy problem?
To be clear, this essay is not an anti-civilization and all its attendant benefits screed. No, instead it is intended as food for thought to an audience of individuals who consider honing self-protection skills, survival ability, self-reliance, independent thinking, and overall fitness as valuable.

With that intention in mind I ask us to pause and reflect to what extent have we ourselves possibly chosen voluntary domestication? And at what costs?
A key question at this point might be, is there a biological mechanism that points to us being able to lose physical and cognitive abilities in a remarkably short amount of time? A biological driver that once atrophied actually reduces our ability to even think about regarding some of these long lost abilities?
Without such a concrete mechanism this discussion is just philosophical piffle, or just another opinion piece.

So, is there such a biological driver?
It turns out there is. And this also comes from animal studies and we just may not like the animal that most resembles us in our current state.

We’ll cover that in Part 2. The Mechanism of Civilizing a Wild Animal.
Until then, have a second read of that quote:

“We were wild animals for seven million years. We learned a lot of lessons. We should be careful not to lose them.”-Lee Child

The Matrix of Discretionary Power – Rory Miller

In modern Western society, we have delegated the enforcement of social rules to a profession. Controlling behavior is no longer the province of a hereditary caste, or the duty of tribal elders or shaman. We have the police.

Individual police officers decide who will be be pulled over for a traffic infraction and who will not; which crimes will be investigated and which will not. Who, in a dispute, will be believed and who will not. This is discretionary power, the power of personal decision. It is and always has been one aspect of rules enforcement, for that matter an aspect of every human interaction. But when wielded by police, discretion can be a hot-button issue.

On a fundamental ethical level, to enforce only the rules one personally agrees with would be the essence of corruption. We all personally approve of and disapprove of different laws. Some see anti-smoking laws as assaults on personal freedom, others as affirmation of public health…and often the exact same people have the exact opposite attitudes depending on whether tobacco or cannabis are the smokable under discussion. When an officer signs on for the job, he or she signs on to enforce the law, not a personal worldview.

But this cannot be an absolute, either. Because at the other extreme we have the Nuremberg Trials and “I was only following orders.”

On the scale between personal corruption and corruption as the mindless enforcer for the state, we have officer discretion.

But discretion happens in the real world— a world of media and voters and interest groups and complicated, emotional, messy human interaction. Discretion happens in a matrix of human interaction, the perceived and written duties of the job, policy, law, moral conviction and, sometimes, survival stress.

First and foremost, citizens say that they want a fair and impartial police service. In practice, people want the opposite. In actual interactions with police, almost universally, citizens want understanding, compassionate and forgiving officers judging them, and by-the-book robots dealing with others. Don’t believe me? How many times have you hoped the police would ticket someone who you thought was driving poorly? And how many times, when you were pulled over, did you think your excuses should be honored?

People fear the police. They are individuals that theoretically have the power of the state behind them. They have belts full of weapons and access to more. In every state’s quest to have a monopoly on violence, the police are the visible representations of that.

Conversely, the police, in the WEIRD* world are controlled by politicians, by the media and in the end, by the citizens. They live and work, especially in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and social media, under a quickly-shifting and seemingly arbitrary standard of right or wrong behavior.

In the interaction between citizens and police there is another factor that flies in the face of our ideals. We can recognize that every dispute, every interaction between two people is different. We have a much harder time accepting that the people coming to solve those disputes, the officers, are not equal. Not every officer understands psychology to the same degree. They can’t all be expected to be fluent in all languages spoken in their district. Some are great shots, some poor. Some are cool under a crisis, some panic. No two officers are the same and thus expecting “fair and equal treatment” is both a practical and physical impossibility.

This is probably the crux of the issue with officer discretion. Absolute lack of discretion is a totalitarian nightmare, where any child who takes a candy bar from a grocery store is branded for life. Total discretion will have officers enforcing their beliefs, not the laws. And there is no happy medium. No place where one can say, “Discretion for X but not for Y” without bad outcomes.

Example: One jurisdiction removed discretion in domestic violence cases. They wrote a “mandatory arrest” law such that, if a domestic violence complaint is made, somebody must go to jail. The people who drafted the law feared that an officer would decide a domestic violence call wasn’t a big deal and would let the abuser stay and the abuser would kill the victim. Fair enough.

But local burglars started calling in domestic violence complaints: “Sounds like there’s a big fight going on at 3643 Sinclair St. Sounds pretty bad.”

The police would arrive and even though all the residents said nothing had happened, and there was no physical evidence of any crime, the officers were required by law to bring someone to jail. One of the very confused people would be taken to jail. The other would leave trying to get enough cash for bail money. And the house would be left conveniently vacant for the burglars who called in the complaint.

Completely aside from the fact that many criminals are masters at manipulating even the best-intentioned rules, have you ever known micro-management to improve human interaction? Writing policy may remove the prejudices and failings of the officer in the field, but only substitutes the prejudices and failings of a bureaucrat who isn’t even present to see, hear and smell that moment.

I see no satisfactory policy answer. Maximizing the discretion of officers allows the people at the scene to make the best possible choice for all concerned. It also, however, clears the way for the stupid, the vain, the power hungry and the cruel to act with a free hand. To remove discretion entirely would require a good policy for every possible situation— an impossible thing to either write or to memorize.

To complicate matters even more, we cannot define a good decision. In the matrix of human interaction, most call those decisions “good” from which they or someone they identify with benefits. When riots broke out after the grand jury decision in Ferguson we saw United States citizens rioting against their own civil rights.

A vocal enough group with vested interests can create a media storm that retroactively turns a good decision into a bad decision. Perfect officer discretion requires not only good judgment and good information, but also the ability to see the future.

The best option, so far, is to recruit the best men and women available, train them to the ultimate degree, have them apprentice with older officers of proven judgment…

That is the ideal, but there are about 900,000 sworn officers in the US alone. Do we have a million perfect people, eager to apply for a thankless, high-stress job? Training is expensive, and an easy thing to cut from the annual budget. New officers apprentice under older officers, and those older officers are people, some good, some bad, some wise, some completely burned out.

To sum up:
The problems with discretion:
Discretion will be misused in some cases
Will be a lightning rod for people who want to call things misuse
Not all officers will have equivalent judgment or skill
The socratic ideal of “fair and equal” is impossible
Officers will be manipulated (but they can learn)

The problems with removing discretion:
Striving for a socratic ideal becomes heartless in the particular
It is inflexible
People will be punished for using judgment
It is reactive to misplaced public pressure— black swans wind up driving policy
Bad people are very good at manipulating systems, and systems are slow to adapt
*Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic

Thoughts on the Taharrush Trend – Toby Cowern

Since the media coverage of collective sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, more and more media outlets are discussing the Taharrush Trend and it’s (potential) impact on Europe and elsewhere.

Now, while it is a worthwhile discussion to have, especially given the desperate need for accurate assessment of the impact of unchecked mass immigration currently happening in many areas of the world, there was one aspect of the dialogue, I feel, is missing.

Before I go into detail, let’s just briefly surmise what ‘Taharrush’ is. Typically, a large gathering of men (Germany saw a gathering of 1000+ Men) will collectively form at a well-attended event or busy public place. In the formation of this crowd a woman will find herself separated from her friends, or just be out alone, she then finds herself encircled by a large group of men who grope her breasts, genitals and buttocks. Attempts are made to pull or cut her clothes off, and her body is pulled in different directions as men move her through the crowd. A short example here; Women regularly report digital penetration of the vagina and anus. Attackers have used sticks, knives and blades, and in several cases sharp objects have been inserted into the victim’s vagina.

The size and disposition of the crowd makes it exceptionally challenging for bystanders or authorities to effectively ‘rescue’ victims trapped within the confines of the crowd, meaning assaults can be brief or last for an extended period of time, with a woman being repeatedly assaulted by different parties for the duration.

Now, while certainly if this is a ‘rising phenomenon’ it should be one that we as self-defense instructors monitor and understand to the best of our ability. With that said, what do I think is missing in the discussion?

While the focus since the attacks that occurred over New Year’s Eve (The incident in Cologne, was just one of many) has been to discuss the motivation of the attacks, I see little or no investigation into the organization of the group. To muster a thousand people, quickly and in a coordinated manner, to then ‘ring fence’ an area to deny the victims a chance to escape is something that should not be overlooked.

If we think back to the peak days of football related violence, crews would spend days if not weeks, carefully planning ‘meets’ to fight rival firms often using elaborate messages and codes to ensure the meet could go down without the police being alerted.  Imagine if a football firm could quickly muster enough people to outnumber AND out maneuver the police!?!

Certainly technology plays a large part, but in combination, in this instance, with language being the ‘code’ that makes it difficult to anticipate what is going to happen and where. One of the ‘delicate’ items of discussing Taharrush in the media, is it is clearly aimed at the current ‘migrant situation’ and largely identifying them as the perpetrators. I am not interested to turn this article into a political discussion, but suffice to say the overwhelming amount of witness testimony highlights the vast majority of the perpetrators are identified as of ‘foreign origin’ mostly of Middle Eastern or African appearance. It is still early days in assessing this ‘trend’ but so far the vast majority of incidents reported all carry a very similar demographic makeup.

It should be noted a vast majority of the migrants entering Europe have done so via extensive smuggling networks which are well organized and deliver time sensitive information primarily via social media. This was seen at unprecedented levels during the emergency ‘border closures’ in the latter half of 2015. Suffice to say, it is not surprising that even after arriving in a ‘safe’ country many people still use, monitor and communicate through these established networks.  Now while this technology can and has been used for a large amount of ‘good’ we also can see it’s potential to be ‘hijacked’ for less well-intentioned means.

Given the large numbers of people currently being kept in poor conditions and suffering with anxiety and boredom waiting for their asylum claims to be processed, and being exposed to significantly different cultures, all with very little forethought to their education and integration from the various governments that ‘invited’ them, we should be swift in acknowledging, identifying and investigating potential new trends or threats as they emerge.

While awareness and avoidance are the cornerstones of defense, the fact these crowds can be so coordinated to ‘appear’ so quickly, means a situation can develop and escalate exceptionally fast. Many of us train with our students to deal with ‘worst case scenarios’, typically ‘more than one attacker’ which is an exceptional challenge to defend from. But rarely do we think in attacker numbers of tens or even hundreds… The events have already transpired to show this is now a potential scenario and the lack of successful prosecution or even authorities (by their own admission) having the adequate means to reduce the chance of these crowds forming again in the future mean it is advisable for us as instructors to assess and identify the solutions to these problems and impart them too our students.

As of right now we have seen coordinated assembly of large groups largely for these sexually motivated type of attacks. But knowing there is ‘strength in numbers’ and acknowledging there is likely to be increased polarization of opinion in a lot of European countries, it’s good to be aware of the potential for large numbers to gather at very short notice in a well-coordinated manner.

To caveat in conclusion. I empathize greatly with the situation many of the asylum seekers and migrants find themselves in and have been a clear advocate of caring for people as they arrive in their new host countries, but demanding far greater, well thought out and delivered policies from the governments that have so far monumentally mismanaged this situation. Yes, during my extensive volunteer work with many of the asylum seekers I acknowledge the vast majority just want a ‘quiet life’. All that said, we cannot ignore the reality of certain deteriorating situations or allow the discussion to get hijacked by politics or political correctness.

I have briefly touched on one potentially ‘newly emerging’ trend today, as an example of needing to keep constantly alert to notable changes in the areas we live and the societies we occupy. Mass migration has occurred many time in the history of humanity and can bring great benefits and rewards but also new trends and challenges. It is our responsibility to stay informed on our student’s behalf AND to offer measured and informed assessment of the developing situations we may see.