The Angela Meyer Interview, Part I – Erik Kondo

Who is Angela Meyer? —————————————————- 2

Pushing Your Students and Red Lines —————————- 5

The Effects of Female Socialization ——————————– 7

Running and Personal Safety —————————————— 10

Female Interest in Women’s Self-Defense ———————– 14

Understanding Risk vs. Reward ————————————— 16

Boundary Setting: Communication and Enforcement —– 19

Fear and Anger —————————————————————— 21

Emotional State and Mental Images ———————————- 24

 

Erik: Please tell me a little about yourself. I am interested in hearing about your background and current activities.

Angela: Ha ha…these days if someone were to ask me that question, my answer off the bat would be to laugh and say, “it’s complicated, but I’m actually always working on the act of balance to make it ‘more simple’.

I was a collegiate soccer player, did not speak as a little girl, to the point of therapist wondering if some sort of “trauma” was involved in my “muteness.”  Found voice through tapping into deeper currents through the team mentality of soccer and spirituality.  After graduating college, I lived in Brazil favelas with a family for a year because I felt drawn to the “edges.”  I got a Masters of Theological Studies from the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, CO and volunteered/ lived/ worked for over 10 years at an AIDS hospice in DC for homeless men and women called Josephs House. In this time span I also started teaching Yoga, and became an End of Life Counselor through the Metta Institute in San Fran.  I left DC to live in NYC and study as a Buddhist Chaplain through the New York Zen Center for Contemplative Care.  Working in the “liminal” space between life and death has been one of the most life-giving spaces for me, as it is “real”, and there is no “bull-shit.”

While I was in NYC I found, a practice called Budokon through a Yoga studio where I taught.  That was my first introduction into Martial Arts.  I had had therapist for years telling me I should do Martial Arts, and my response was always, “I don’t have time for another thing.” After my first taste of Martial Arts, I had visions of being Million Dollar Baby and trained seriously in all aspects since then.

Upon moving back to DC a year later, I trained very seriously in Krav Maga and MMA, Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, wrestling.  From the beginning, I had a desire to compete, but I also suffer from anxiety which kept getting in the way.  I also had to do a lot of internal work, around my identity of being a “caregiver.”  All the work I had done professionally, was in an intense caregiving role.  I had to work out internally what it meant to be a “caregiver” and also what it means to be “violent”.  I wanted to fight so bad in a ring or cage, but didn’t think I’d be able to hit someone in the face, ground and pound and make them bleed. I had to work through my own inner violence, and integrate the feelings and meaning attached to it.

In the last year and a half…I finally stepped into a Muay Thai ring four times and am currently training for a fight at the end of April.  Although the fear and anxiety is there every time, I’m learning more and more about my “limbic threshold” and through great coaching being able to access more than I thought was there.

I’ve trained in self-defense for the past six years through Fit to Fight, an organization that recently broke away from Krav Maga, but focuses on both Self-defense and training students to fight. I will be testing for my Black Belt this August in San Antonio.

Currently I teach Yoga, lead Yoga Teacher Trainings, teach a lot of Women’s Self-defense, travel and teach workshops with my partner who is also my coach. I normally train 3 hours a day and am always looking for balance which I’ve accepted is not a destination but a continual act.  I am fascinated between the similarities in Yoga, Fighting (Martial Arts/Self Defense) and working with Death, breathing is the common thread.

I’ll stop there and we can continue.

Erik:  Well, I had a suspicion that you had an interesting background and you definitely do.

In terms of women’s self-defense, what is the focus of your teaching? What is the primary message/take-away that you want your students to receive from your classes?

Angela: To stop waiting for prince charming or someone to come save them.  To learn to be your own hero.

To stop apologizing away their lives and instead say, “I wish a mother fucker would.”  To understand that it’s possible to still be fiercely compassionate and violent in the same moment.  To not fear their own violence, but to channel it, creating boundaries, not just in a self-defense scenario, but every relationship in their lives.  To say no when they want and yes when they want.  To understand that if someone chose to attack them, they must dehumanize them…they have become an object, therefore no one cares how you “feel”, or if you are tired or don’t want to right now.

I want students to become more intimate with their perceived “red line”…the place where physically they think they have nothing more to give. They can’t go on…where they are highly uncomfortable…and I coach them to see if they can access more…to realize that they may just a little bit more to give.  To understand that if someone crossed a line in the sand and they had to “fight”, no one would care if they were fucking tired, or uncomfortable, they just should go.

This comes full circle to the psychological work.  The “pre-emptive” self-defense.  Questions like What would you be willing to fight for?  What are you fighting for currently? (doesn’t have to be physical), Could you kill someone? What would you be willing to do?

I think it is very important to do the “inner” work of self-defense, as well as the physical.

Erik: Please expand on what you mean by “I wish a motherfucker would…”

Angela:  “I wish a mother fucker would” is of course used more for effect than a literal expression.

When I’m teaching, I make sure I clarify that I am not literally walking around the world, hoping someone will attack me. I am a small woman, and even though I “train” am under no assumption that size, terrain, surprise, weapons, etc, don’t matter, they do. I use this “phrase” to explain walking around as a woman with confidence. I explain to the women I teach, that after training in Self Defense/Fighting, I walk different on the streets of DC. I am still fully aware of my vulnerability, I just have a different awareness. If I am walking on the street and I hear someone sketchy coming behind me, I am more ready, more alert. I look if there are places I can run, are there other people around, is there anything I could use as a weapon? I want to show that I would not be an easy target. This is what I’m talking about when I say “ I wish a mother fucker would” mentality, like a game face on, even if inside my bones are shaking.

Erik:  Based on what you said about pushing your students and their Red Lines.

How do you deal with the fact that what you really want to do is push these women both physically and mentally, but there is always the very real possibility that due to past history with trauma (or something else) that one or more of them will have an emotional breakdown?

This creates a situation in group training where the students are effectively limited by the weakest member(s) of the group.

For example, you simulate a high-pressure assault and the student breaks under the pressure. The result is that she ends off being psychologically worse off than before. Her confidence is lowered, not raised.

On the other hand, the other women in the group would benefit from dealing with having their limits pushed, tested, and ultimately expanded.

Many instructors deal with this issue by creating “fantasy fights” where everyone “wins” regardless of the effectiveness of their actions.

The side effect being that the students leave the training with an unrealistic assessment of their ability and never really get “tested”.

How do you deal with this problem?

Angela: Wow, these are great questions and very real ones. I have had several students who have had a history of trauma from mild to very severe and I think the key word is TRUST.  I lead with a no bullshit approach, and I push students to their breaking points, but because of my background in Chaplaincy, hospice and counseling, I never do this without having first created a safe space.

I lead with ferocity but also a feminine energy (not meaning, because I’m a woman, just more circular).  I sit the women down in a circle before we start, I share a little bit about my fear and vulnerability, not in a sense of oversharing, or being “soft”, but so that they will trust me. I tell them that I am okay holding any of their “feelings” and that my job is not for them to like me, but to ruffle their feathers.

That said, because I am a trained professional in creating community, safe spaces and counseling…I feel able to not baby women who have had past experiences, but go at their speed.  Many of the women are also seeing therapist in conjunction with self-defense training.  I’ve had so many different experiences and deal with them each on an individual basis, through deep listening and a mutual trust relationship.  If I have not established trust or created a safe space, I would not be able to do this.  I think that is why it can be so healing to have a Woman teach all women’s self-defense.  In these environments, it can feel safe enough to break down, fall apart, get angry, and work through trauma.    Even though my goal is to explore their limbic threshold through pushing physically and psychologically, I am also a fierce nurturer, and energetically embody a safe presence.

I also am not an advocate of protecting or babying women, but I don’t think it is black and white, especially when dealing with real trauma. This is where I think self-defense is such a personal journey and there are no “right and wrong” answers.

I do not change the intensity or ferocity of my teaching, but I am highly aware and sensitive, to those who have had prior experiences.

Sometimes I’ll have them work with specific people, like my assistants.  I always provide techniques for self-care after.  I also make sure to let these women know that they are in charge.  I do not force anyone to go where they are not ready to go, but I work with them in an intimate way to take their power back…again, for each woman I’ve worked with, it’s been a personal journey.

So, I guess, my “circular answer” to your great question is…I could not do the work I do, I could not ask women to go to the places that scare them the most, if I did not first create trust and a safe space.  This is one reason I think it is helpful to have female teachers of Self Defense.  It’s hard to fully understand what it’s like to walk around the world as a woman if you are not one.  Just like as a white woman, I can never understand fully what it means to walk around as a person of color.

End of Part I.

 

Institutionalized Darwinism – Erik Kondo

Many people have a basic understanding of Darwin’s theory of National Selection a/k/a Survival of the Fittest. The premise is that as a species evolve, the stronger more effective traits and characteristics survive and propagate, while the weaker ones dwindle and die out. As a result, the species as a whole is always improving.

Natural Selection can also be seen in certain fields of human performance and their associated training methodologies. Specifically, those areas where the high end of absolute performance in a given field keeps improving. For examples, look at many fields of athletics or extreme sports where performance records are constantly being broken. Achievements and stunts once considered impossible have become routine. Speed records for running, jumping, climbing, swimming, and more are broken regularly. For aerial stunts, single backflips have morphed into doubles, then into triples.

But then there are also those areas of human activity where improvements haven’t occurred. Or even worse, performances have become inferior over time. How can this be? Shouldn’t the effect of Natural Selection create steady improvement in all areas as better methods replace worse?

The first answer is that Darwinism requires a reason/motivation to create change. Without a reason to change or a motivating threat of some sort, Darwinism doesn’t apply. In that case, inertia rules and nothing changes. Training methods are static and handed down from generation to generation. The philosophy is that it is done this way because it has always been done this way.

Now look at areas where absolute performance is deteriorating.

What if Natural Selection is actually happening, but this type of Natural Selection is geared towards to benefiting the associated Institution rather than the Individual?

For example, look at the Martial Arts Industry as a whole (the Institution) in terms of self-defense. Darwinism as applied to Individuals would mean that martial arts practitioners would keep getting better and better at defending themselves. Absolute training times to achieve reasonable proficiency would get shorter. Self-defense effectiveness would increase for more people, and a greater variety of people. But that isn’t happening.

Despite Institutionalized claims to the contrary, overall martial arts effectiveness for self-defense is arguably getting worse, or at least not improving. Does that mean that Darwinism doesn’t apply to the Martial Arts Industry? Or is the Institution of the Martial Arts benefiting at the expense of individual performance?

Institutionalized Darwinism is my name for the process in which the ongoing change benefits the needs of the Institution rather than the needs of the individual. And that may also mean at the expense of the Individual.

What are the needs of martial arts organizations? A few are: to grow in size and scope, to attract more students, to make more money, to sell more products, to become more influential in society. Making martial arts classes non-challenging to student’s egos and promoting fantasy fighting disguised as self-defense training benefits the Institution, but does nothing to advance Individual self-defense effectiveness.

Institutionalized Darwinism explains the majority of YouTube self-defense videos, moves, and tips. The Process of Natural Selection doesn’t weed out the bad and promote the good from the standpoint of the Individual, but it does benefit someone or something. It is up to you to determine who or what benefits from these promoted training methodologies, most likely, it isn’t you.

 

The Verbal Monkey Dancer – Erik Kondo

The Monkey Dance is a term coined by Rory Miller in his model of violence dynamics. Rory describes a Monkey Dance as a type of social violence where two people, usually men, engage in a ritual confrontation to establish dominance and social status. One of hallmarks of the Monkey Dance is the influence of the Monkey Brain. Both Rory Miller and Marc MacYoung have written extensively about the workings of Monkey Brain as part of their work on Conflict Communications.

The vocal portion of the Monkey Dance is a subset of this behavior. Whereas, the Monkey Dance many times climaxes in a fight, a purely vocal Monkey Dance does not. It has the majority of the elements of the full Monkey Dance. It is inherently social in nature. The behaviors are driven by the Monkey Brain. An audience is usually involved. But there is one significant difference. The participants don’t intend to cross the line from verbal into physical.

A vocal Monkey Dance between two or more parties can be viewed as a Monkey Dance that didn’t quite make it to the fighting Monkey Dance stage. In many cases, the parties involved don’t really have any intention of actually fighting.  They are posturing and pretending to be preparing to fight. But the Verbal Monkey Dancer is something else. This person has no intention of fighting in the first place. He or she isn’t posturing for a fight. He or she is certain that he/she will not be physically responded to regardless of his or her abusive behavior.

Unlike Monkey Dancers that are in the vocalizing stage, the Verbal Monkey Dancer, doesn’t expect a physical response to his/her actions regardless of his/her outrageous behavior.

The reason that this person can get away with these actions is that he or she is a member of some type of protected class where the use of physical force against him/her would be considered unacceptable by society. Some examples of protected classes are: women, the young, the elderly, and people with disabilities.  High status individuals can also be Verbal Monkey Dancers. It is as if the person has an invisible protective societal shield. The Verbal Monkey Dancer knows that it is unlikely that the subject of his/her violent behavior will respond physically. Therefore, he/she feels free to unleash both verbal and physical abuse.

It is important to note that while people in some protected classes are frequently targeted and victimized by Predators because they are considered easy victims, not all members of these classes are only prey. The Verbal Monkey Dancer has recognized how to use his or her social status to prey upon other people through his/her bad behavior. This person is able to identify people who are unlikely to physically attack him or her regardless of what he/she does. In some ways, some Verbal Monkey Dancers chose their physically stronger victims in the same way that a Predator chooses physically weaker victims.

The Verbal Monkey Dancer knows that in certain situations, the greater the perceived physical advantage of his/her victims, the less likely they will respond with violence. Other Verbal Monkey Dancers will choose victims that are inherently passive in nature and thus unlikely to respond violently. High Status Verbal Monkey Dancers uses the power of their social status to intimidate their victims. In either case, the Verbal Monkey Dancer is selective in his/her victim selection.  Neither the Predator nor the Verbal Monkey Dancer wants to encounter a target that physically fights back.

There is also a type of Verbal Monkey Dancer that doesn’t depend upon the shield of society for protection. This person feels protected by some type of barrier that they feel keeps them safe. Imagine a person, yelling at others while standing safely behind a fence. Or a car driver spewing abuse at someone on the sidewalk knowing that he can easily speed away.

Frequently, the Verbal Monkey Dancer will act alone. But there are instances where Verbal Monkey Dancers get together an act in groups. The group behavior follows the same pattern as previously described.

In the case of a Verbal Monkey Dancer, his or her Monkey Brain is fully engaged. He or she may be outraged by some event or belief that aroused his/her limbic system to seek revenge or venting. Regardless of his/her specific motivation it is important to recognize the behavior pattern of a Verbal Monkey Dancer. A skilled Verbal Monkey Dancer must be handled with care. He or she knows how to work the system to his/her advantage. He or she knows how much she/he can get away with and not provoke a physical response. And if he or she does provoke a physical response, he/she knows how to use her social status to punish her victim further.

In the age of the weaponization of mobile phones and social media, sometimes the safest defense against Verbal Monkey Dancers is to record their bad behavior as evidence of their abuse.

Beware of the Verbal Monkey Dancer!

Boundary Setting: Emotion Based vs. Strategic Based – Erik Kondo

Boundary setting is a fundamental part of human life. Boundaries keep us protected from both physical and emotional intrusion from others. I think there are two main approaches for boundary setting. They are Strategic Based Boundary Setting (SBBS) and Emotion Based Boundary Setting (EBBS). Most people engage in Emotion Based Boundary Setting as the default. Effective Strategic Based Boundary Setting does not come naturally. It is a learned behavior. To engage in it, you must understand the cause and effect of boundary setting actions. You have a strategic goal that you are trying to accomplish.

On the other hand, Emotion Based Boundary Setting requires no prior knowledge or training. You engage in it based on how you feel at any given moment. Your actions are driven by your emotions. Since everyone has emotions, everyone also has the ability to use this approach from the get-go. Rather than being strategy driven, your goal is emotion driven.

Think of it this way. Regardless of the effectiveness of their actions, all people engage in boundary setting each day on some level. Since most people are not consciously aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it, they are not engaging in Strategic Based Boundary Setting. But these same people will respond in some manner to personal boundary encroachments and violations. Since they are not responding based on achieving a strategic goal, then they are responding based on achieving an emotional goal. Their emotions are the driver of their actions.

In some instances, their emotional goal will lineup with their strategic goal. But many times, their emotional goal will run counter to their strategic goal. Effective boundary setting involves purposely creating harmony between your emotional and strategic goals.

When it comes to Emotional Boundary Setting, there are basic two categories. Actions based on fear and actions based on anger. Boundary violations are unlikely to make you sad or only surprise you. But they are likely to make you fearful or angry. Based on your emotional response, you will react in some manner. This reaction is the essence of Emotion Based Boundary Setting. If you are fearful, you have a set of responses that are consistent with being afraid. If you are angry, you will respond consistent with being angry. The problem is that these responses don’t take into consideration their appropriateness for the situation. They are not goal oriented, they are emotion oriented.

Given that human beings develop their emotions well before their cognitive processes, it makes sense that people start off using EBBS. This method becomes thoroughly conditioned during people’s teen years. If some people are fortunate, they may learn effective boundary setting through modeling behavior. Or they may discover a method that works for them through trial and error. In that case, they may end up using a limited version of SBBS. But more than likely, they will condition themselves into habitually using ineffective emotional methods.

Emotion Based Boundary Setting looks like the following:

You are standing in line and someone steps in front of you.

What emotion you feel is situational.

You could have some degree of anger because someone unfairly stepped in front of you.

You could have some degree of fear because someone had the nerve to step in front of you AND he or she could be dangerous.

If you feel any other emotion, it is likely you did not consider the event a boundary violation. Therefore, there is no need for a response.

How you respond will be a function of what will make you feel better. If you are angry, then telling the person off will likely make you feel better. If you are fearful, ignoring or moving away from the person will likely make you feel better. But in either case, the question of what response will likely create the most goal oriented advantage for you is not part of your equation.

The problem is that if your response is anger-based, it is likely to escalate the situation. If your response is fear-based, you show yourself to be a non-enforcer of boundary violations. You create less external and internal respect for yourself. As a practical matter, one emotion based response usually leads to another from the other person and yourself. The result could easily be a situation that spirals out of control.

Many people, fearing the consequences of their actions, will use a low level response consisting of primarily body language. Unhappy with their response, their self-esteem will suffer. They may engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify their response as adequate. They may fault the other person individually, or stereotype and blame the person’s gender, or race, or religion, or occupation, or social status, or anything that makes them feel better about their response.

Other people will allow their anger to obscure the consequences of their actions. They will use a higher level response of aggressive verbal and/or a physical action to teach the violator a lesson. As before, these types of actions are emotionally easier when faulting the other person individually, or stereotyping and blaming the person’s gender, or race, or religion, or occupation, or social status, or anything that makes them feel better about their response.

In essence, Emotion Based Boundary Setting is about attempting to create emotional satisfaction by whatever means available. Whereas Strategic Based Boundary Setting is about attempting to create strategic satisfaction by whatever means available.

Safety vs. Security – Erik Kondo

Understand the Difference Between Safety and Security, it Might Save Your Life.

It is common for people to want to increase security for themselves, their family, their neighborhood, their country, etc. In most cases, people think in terms of adding security measures in an existing security system. The basic thinking is that the current security system has a weakness that needs to be reinforced or a hole than needs to be filled.

For the sake of this writing, I am going to talk about security in terms of a security system and/or security measures while safety is the inverse of absolute risk from a harmful event. The lower the risk of a dangerous event occurring, the greater the safety. This relationship applies to both personal and public safety.

Security is some action or measure than is done to protect against a known risk. The simplest example is a home security system which is designed to help prevent home invasions and burglaries. Another example is carrying bear spray while walking in the woods. These are two means of raising the level of your security system.

Safety on the other hand is really a function of the overall ecosystem. Safety is determined by the result of the interconnected factors that make up the entire ecosystem. One of these factors is the security system.  The level of a person’s safety is a function of his or her risk to danger. Public safety is determined by the public’s level of risk to danger.

For many, security is thought of as being like a fence. The fewer weaknesses/holes in the fence, the more effective the fence will be at keeping people out. The same thinking goes for personal safety. In this case, the person is the security system. By shoring up his or her weaknesses, his or her personal security system becomes more effective.

The preceding methodology seems to be common sense. But as compelling and as reasonable as it seems, it has a logical flaw. Measures that strengthen a security system don’t necessarily lead to greater actual safety in the real world.  The reason for this is that actual safety is a function of the safety ecosystem in which the security system is just one of many interconnected elements. The strength of the security system is NOT the only factor that determines the overall safety of the ecosystem.

An ecosystem is a complex network of interacting elements. A security system is one element of this ecosystem. Since all the elements are interconnected, changing one element has the potential of changing the other elements too. In other words, strengthening the security system may have the unintended effect of upsetting the balance of the overall safety ecosystem. In this case, the result may be an ecosystem that is less safe despite the presence of a stronger security system.

How can this be? For example, assume that you wear a padded vest as protection against being punched in the chest. It is an undeniable fact that if someone punches you in the chest, you will be more protected than without the vest. Therefore, you must be safer, correct? And if everything stayed the same, you would be safer. But everything doesn’t stay the same in an ecosystem. Its very nature is to be interconnected. Therefore, changing one element has the effect of changing some or all the other elements.

In this example, it is very possible that wearing a padded chest protector in public will influence some people to want to punch you since you now are a juicy target. Therefore, your risk of being punched in the chest has just gone up. And while you may be more protected from the chest punch, you may end up falling and hitting your head. You may end up getting into more fights then before you had the chest protector. The overall result is that your safety decreased even though your security system has increased.

Getting back to the fence example. Let’s assume that the fence surrounds an apple tree grove. The fence has the effect of keeping all but the most determined people out. These few people climb the fence and steal a few apples every day. Therefore, you decide to make the fence higher and top it with barbed wire. Now even the most determined thieves will not risk climbing the fence. Your security system is stronger.

But the safety of the apples depends upon the ecosystem in which they exist, not just the strength of the security system. Since the determined thieves can no longer climb the fence to get the apples, they change tactics and join with many others to ram a huge hole in the fence. The net result is a hoard of people who attack the fence, create a hole, and pillage the apple grove. The overall safety of the apple grove decreased despite the increase in the security system.

What this means is that the level of safety can go down as a result of the level of security going up. For some people, this is a mind-blowing concept. That is because they erroneously think that safety and security are the same concepts. And if there was no safety ecosystem, then the level of safety would be the same as the level of security.

In real life, there is always an ecosystem. Therefore,

Safety = Security System +/- (The effect of everything else in the ecosystem which changes as the Security System changes).

Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether increasing the strength of the security system will increase or decrease overall safety unless all the elements of the ecosystem are taken into consideration. Every person and every entity exists in a unique ecosystem with different factors to consider.

Let’s consider a few more examples.

  • Carrying a knife is a security measure. Doing so increases the magnitude of the person’s security system. But whether it increases their safety depends upon the person’s unique ecosystem. If carrying a knife increases the possibility that it will be taken and used against them, then it lowers their safety. If it increases the possibility that they will be shot, then it lowers their safety. If it increases the chance that they will go to jail, then it lowers their safety. On the other hand, if it doesn’t do the above and increases the chance that they will be able to use it for self-protection, then it does increase their safety.
  • Increased police firepower and body amour represent an increase in security. If this increase creates a deterrence from people committing crimes, then it increases public safety. If on the other hand, many members of the public see this increase police security methods as menacing and decide to retaliate by rioting and committing crimes, then public safety is reduced.

Don’t be fooled by those who think that safety is that is always the same as security. Or those who consider that increasing security measures is simply a matter of “common sense”. They don’t know any better.

You live in an ecosystem. Your family lives in an ecosystem. Your neighborhood and your country, both exist in ecosystems. Increasing your safety requires more than just adding or strengthening security measures. It requires understanding all the factors involved and taking into consideration how they interact.

 

 

CRGI Live #1 – Erik Kondo, Terry Trahan and Varg Freeborn

In this the first of a series of interviews Erik, Terry and Varg discuss violence addiction, the realities of violence, mindsets for dealing with violence and much much more.

This is dynamite stuff, this is learning by proxy.

https://vimeopro.com/user47283856/crgi-live

Understand the Difference Between Safety and Security. It Might Save Your Life – Erik Kondo

It is common for people to want to increase security for themselves, their family, their neighborhood, their country, etc. In most cases, people think in terms of adding security measures in an existing security system. The basic thinking is that the current security system has a weakness that needs to be reinforced or a hole than needs to be filled.

For the sake of this writing, I am going to talk about security in terms of a security system and/or security measures while safety is the inverse of absolute risk from a harmful event. The lower the risk of a dangerous event occurring, the greater the safety. This relationship applies to both personal and public safety.

Security is some action or measure than is done to protect against a known risk. The simplest example is a home security system which is designed to help prevent home invasions and burglaries. Another example is carrying bear spray while walking in the woods. These are two means of raising the level of your security system.

Safety on the other hand is really a function of the overall ecosystem. Safety is determined by the result of the interconnected factors that make up the entire ecosystem. One of these factors is the security system.  The level of a person’s safety is a function of his or her risk to danger. Public safety is determined by the public’s level of risk to danger.

For many, security is thought of as being like a fence. The fewer weaknesses/holes in the fence, the more effective the fence will be at keeping people out. The same thinking goes for personal safety. In this case, the person is the security system. By shoring up his or her weaknesses, his or her personal security system becomes more effective.

The preceding methodology seems to be common sense. But as compelling and as reasonable as it seems, it has a logical flaw. Measures that strengthen a security system don’t necessarily lead to greater actual safety in the real world.  The reason for this is that actual safety is a function of the safety ecosystem in which the security system is just one of many interconnected elements. The strength of the security system is NOT the only factor that determines the overall safety of the ecosystem.

An ecosystem is a complex network of interacting elements. A security system is one element of this ecosystem. Since all the elements are interconnected, changing one element has the potential of changing the other elements too. In other words, strengthening the security system may have the unintended effect of upsetting the balance of the overall safety ecosystem. In this case, the result may be an ecosystem that is less safe despite the presence of a stronger security system.

How can this be? For example, assume that you wear a padded vest as protection against being punched in the chest. It is an undeniable fact that if someone punches you in the chest, you will be more protected than without the vest. Therefore, you must be safer, correct? And if everything stayed the same, you would be safer. But everything doesn’t stay the same in an ecosystem. Its very nature is to be interconnected. Therefore, changing one element has the effect of changing some or all the other elements.

In this example, it is very possible that wearing a padded chest protector in public will influence some people to want to punch you since you now are a juicy target. Therefore, your risk of being punched in the chest has just gone up. And while you may be more protected from the chest punch, you may end up falling and hitting your head. You may end up getting into more fights then before you had the chest protector. The overall result is that your safety decreased even though your security system has increased.

Getting back to the fence example. Let’s assume that the fence surrounds an apple tree grove. The fence has the effect of keeping all but the most determined people out. These few people climb the fence and steal a few apples every day. Therefore, you decide to make the fence higher and top it with barbed wire. Now even the most determined thieves will not risk climbing the fence. Your security system is stronger.

But the safety of the apples depends upon the ecosystem in which they exist, not just the strength of the security system. Since the determined thieves can no longer climb the fence to get the apples, they change tactics and join with many others to ram a huge hole in the fence. The net result is a hoard of people who attack the fence, create a hole, and pillage the apple grove. The overall safety of the apple grove decreased despite the increase in the security system.

What this means is that the level of safety can go down as a result of the level of security going up. For some people, this is a mind-blowing concept. That is because they erroneously think that safety and security are the same concepts. And if there was no safety ecosystem, then the level of safety would be the same as the level of security.

In real life, there is always an ecosystem. Therefore,

Safety = Security System +/- (The effect of everything else in the ecosystem which changes as the Security System changes).

Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether increasing the strength of the security system will increase or decrease overall safety unless all the elements of the ecosystem are taken into consideration. Every person and every entity exists in a unique ecosystem with different factors to consider.

Let’s consider a few more examples.

  1. Carrying a knife is a security measure. Doing so increases the magnitude of the person’s security system. But whether it increases their safety depends upon the person’s unique ecosystem. If carrying a knife increases the possibility that it will be taken and used against them, then it lowers their safety. If it increases the possibility that they will be shot, then it lowers their safety. If it increases the chance that they will go to jail, then it lowers their safety. On the other hand, if it doesn’t do the above and increases the chance that they will be able to use it for self-protection, then it does increase their safety.
  2. Increased police firepower and body amour represent an increase in security. If this increase creates a deterrence from people committing crimes, then it increases public safety. If on the other hand, many members of the public see this increase police security methods as menacing and decide to retaliate by rioting and committing crimes, then public safety is reduced.

Don’t be fooled by those who think that safety is that is always the same as security. Or those who consider that increasing security measures is simply a matter of “common sense”. They don’t know any better.

You live in an ecosystem. Your family lives in an ecosystem. Your neighborhood and your country, both exist in ecosystems. Increasing your safety requires more than just adding or strengthening security measures. It requires understanding all the factors involved and taking into consideration how they interact.

 

On Models – Erik Kondo and Rory Miller

Rory and I have a basic disagreement about models. I love them. He doesn’t. No. We are not talking about the beautiful models you see in print or on TV. That a whole different discussion. We are talking about educational models used for teaching.

Rory will explain why he doesn’t like them. But first I will explain why I do.

I see models as teaching tools that provide a framework for understanding. The world is a complex place. Trying to figure out how the world works is a difficult task. Therefore, I see models as a pathway to building a general understanding of a subject. The basic idea is to take a subject and break it down into it’s component parts. Then each part can be examined and discussed both separately and also in combination with the other parts.

Flexible models allow for understanding to grow and become more complex as the person’s understanding of the subject increases. Models provide the student with mental anchoring where he or she can “chunk” information together. As the person’s understanding increases, so does the connections and relationships between the “chunks” increase.

Therefore, I see models as problem solving tools. They are starting points on the journey of understanding.

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.” — Box, George E. P.

But,  I do agree that models also have their disadvantages. Models are only representations of reality. They are not reality. As famously stated by mathematician, George Box, they are also invariably wrong to a certain extent.

For example, Newtonian Physics is essentially a model that is wrong under certain conditions. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a model that is also incorrect under certain other conditions, but it solves some of the flaws of the Newtonian model. So why not skip Newton and go straight to Einstein? Because Einstein’s theory is very hard to understand and it requires a fair amount of prerequisite knowledge. And one practical prerequisite, is to understand the Newtonian model first.

I think that much of the practical problems of the Newtonian model can be mitigated by realizing that it is both an imperfect and limited model.

When it comes to models for conflict management, I think that people run into trouble when they assume that the Model will give them the correct answer to their specific problem. Instead of viewing the Model as a problem solving tool for them to use to come to their own solution, they see the Model as already having the solution.

In this case, blind faith in the Model causes them to be rigid and inflexible in their thinking. This is an example of not having a flexible or growth mindset. People without this type mindset tend to see models in this rigid fashion. As a result, learning a model actually could be detrimental for them.

These are the people who want a definite answer to the question of “If he does this, what should I do?”

This is a different question than “If he does this, what are some of my alternatives?”

Ultimately, I think models are useful for helping people who are willing to teach themselves. This type of person will benefit from a model as a starting point. Then he or she will discard the model in favor of his or her own personalized model or means of understanding.

But there is no telling how a person will use a model. Therefore, I think that if models come with full disclosure of their inherent flaws, then their advantages will out weigh their disadvantages. That is why I use them – a lot.

Here is Rory’s take on models.

Models have their place. In closed systems, models or formulas work very well. A closed system is one in which the conditions are known and there are right and wrong answers. Erik brought up physics. Newtonian physics (I don’t know enough about advanced physics to make the same assertion) is a closed system. There are a handful of known constants and laws and if you know the variables (length of lever, distance to both load and force from fulcrum, amount of force applied) you will a always get the same answer.

Most of what we learn in school are closed systems. Math. Geography. Writing is an interesting one, because the fundamentals of writing (grammar, spelling and even story structure) are taught as a closed system, but good writing can and does break all of the rules. Think of Faulkner. Effective writing is an open system, but we tend to teach it as a closed system.

Conflict management is a classic open system. It is broad and deep. There are many variables and the majority of those are outside of your control, unknown to you, or both. There is no single definition of a win and the exact same outcome in a situation can be interpreted as a loss or a win by two different people and each individual can even change their mind about whether it was a win over time.

Models are used for a lot of reasons. In closed systems, they make sense. Bureaucracies like measurability and open skills are not really measurable. But the nature of the beast is that surviving violence is predicated on adaptability. On changing the situation. On breaking social rules and taboos that try to keep a student on a socially acceptable script. Cheating, in other words. And you can’t make a model for breaking models.

But I think the most common reason people try to apply models to open systems is simply fear. If you can take this ugly, immense, complicated problem and give it nice neat labels and put it in a box, it looks less scary.

That’s classic fear management, not danger management. Willful blindness.

My take, as an instructor, is to normalize the chaos. Our world, life itself, is an open system. We evolved to deal with that level of complexity. Humans rock at dealing with unknowns, if they let themselves.

I do use models in my teaching. Partially because I went through the school system like everyone else and it’s a hard habit to break. But when I use them consciously, it’s never to give answers. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, for instance.

A prescriptive instructor would use Maslow to say, “An assailant working from the security level of the hierarchy will… and so you must…” Used properly (in other words, my way) the same level gives you, “If no one was going to help you and your children were starving, how would you get money for food?” Followed up, after the class has answered the question: “Get it? An addict doesn’t think differently than you, they just have a level of problem very few people in our culture have had to deal with…”

The purpose of models, when I use them well, is to add layers to the depth of understanding. Most models, however, are used to cut out variables and complexity that the instructor is unprepared to deal with.

There is one other reason to use models in an open system, and it hinges on the instructor’s assumptions and biases.

If you assume that your students are intelligent and adaptable, you give them tools and information and trust them to find their own best solutions by their own definitions with their own personal resources. This is the “gains maximization” strategy, looking for the best win.

If, however, you assume your students are stupid and will generally make things worse if left to their own judgment, in that case you will need to rely on models. You need to tell them what to do and be prescriptive. That’s the loss minimization strategy.

I personally reject that point of view. But that’s me.

 

Beware the Backlash of Over-enforcement – Erik Kondo

Just as Under-enforcement breeds contempt, so does Over-enforcement (or the perception of over-enforcement) lead to a Backlash.

A backlash (overreaction, retaliation, revenge, retribution, reprisal) is the natural response that arises when someone feels that he or she has been over-enforced upon. This response is produced by emotions such as:

resentment, anger, outrage, bitterness, antagonism, indignation, spite, vengefulness, vindictiveness, rancor, and more.

A backlash can be thought of as an emotionally driven response. Therefore, it may or may not be justified. The important point is that a backlash stems from emotion. It is created when someone feels that he or she (or his or her tribe) have been unjustly treated regardless of whether it is true.

Many people realize that under-enforcement breeds contempt. Therefore, in an effort to not under-enforce, they place no upper limits on the magnitude of enforcement they use or advocate. These people tend to over-enforce. They don’t consider the destructive power of the associated backlash against them or their cause. Societal over-enforcement comes in many different forms. Here are a few examples;

  • Blaming all members of a tribe for the actions of part of the tribe is an over-enforcement.
  • Holding all members of a group “culturally” responsible for the actions of an individual member of the group is over-enforcement.
  • Shaming by making all members of a gender, race, religion, or occupation feel guilty about the action of members within that gender, race, religion, or occupation is an over-enforcement.

The shaming slippery slope argument comes into play here too.  Someone decides that A leads to B and that B leads to C and then C leads to D. Therefore, following this argument, if anyone engages in A, B, or C, he or she is also guilty of engaging in D.

The problem is that people who have only engaged in A, B, and C, haven’t engaged in D. And shaming them for engaging in D is likely to lead to a backlash, especially from those people who have just engaged in A or B.

It is common for people who feel judged by others to feel resentment. When entire groups of people feel judged, their combined resentment can create a powerful backlash.

Nobody likes to be judged. Entire movements have been spawned by people who have felt judged by others.

There are many socially motivated organizations on both sides of the political spectrum whose social campaigns consists of creating “awareness” about perceived problems in society. To attract attention, these organizations paint many problems as “cultural” issues that are caused by everyone in a tribe. While this method is effective for gaining support from members outside the accused tribe, it inevitably creates a backlash.

If the accused tribe is small and relatively powerless, the backlash may be manageable. But many times, some social advocacy organizations take on entire races, genders, religions, occupations, etc. in their quest to expose what they consider to be “cultural” bad behavior. The result can be a powerful backlash that threatens their cause. Even if their cause is morally just, their methodology of widespread blaming and accusation against entire groups is flawed. They win the short-term battle of recruiting supporters while losing the war that is overall acceptance of their cause.

Over-enforcement is worse than just over-shooting a target. If you over-shoot to not under-shoot, you only miss. But you throw a ball too hard against a backstop, it may rebound harshly and hit you in the eye.

It is easy to talk tough when you don’t acknowledge or realize the possibility of a backlash. If it were not for the backlash, over-enforcement would most likely be an effective solution to many of the world’s problems. But the backlash exists.

But just as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, so does under-enforcement breed contempt and over-enforcement lead to a backlash.

Opposite reactionary backlashes also create a destructive feedback cycle where each backlash creates a larger backlash against it.

For a visual example, a skateboarder who goes too fast for his ability may get the Speed Wobbles. Maybe he hit a bump or something to set them off. What happens is the skateboard turns to slightly one side and the rider overcorrects. The board now turns to the other side. The rider is literally behind the curve; he corrects too late and too much. Each correction (backlash) results in a greater, faster, and more violent turn. What the rider needs to do is to relax and stop reacting. He needs to calm down and let the board settle itself. If he doesn’t do so, he is likely to crash.

The Speed Wobbles create fear. It takes courage to ride them out. This fear must be contained and reactions must be controlled for the Speed Wobbles to subside.

Another visual example of this destructive cycle is the harmonic feedback as seen in this video of the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

In conclusion, all enforcement actions need to take into consideration the possibility and danger of the backlash and particularly creating a feedback backlash cycle that spirals out of control.

 

 

The New Fighting Words: Your Privileged, Entitled, and Easily Offended – Erik Kondo

Imagine that you are in an argument with your significant other. You say “You need calm down”. Does that ever work to get him or her to calm down?

Does he or she ever say “You’re right, I am getting a little upset. Thanks for pointing that out. I will now calm down.” Or does the argument now escalate?

Imagine that you are a high school senior, your friend was just accepted to a prestigious college, and you tell her that she was accepted because she came from a “privileged” background. Does she agree? And then say, “Yes, that is so true. It was my privilege that got me accepted.” Or did you just lose a friend?

Imagine that your roommate keeps forgetting to do the dishes, you tell him, “You keep not doing the dishes because of your sense of entitlement.” Does he say, “Of course, that’s it.  I never thought of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.” Or, do the dishes now get “forgotten” even more frequently?

Imagine that you make a crude joke and you look your coworker and say “I hope that I didn’t offend you, I know you get offended easily.” Does she say, “Thank you for your consideration, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.” Or does she just glare at you?

Accusing someone or some group of being Privileged, Entitled or Offended doesn’t work to resolve conflicts. Their usage tends to make situations worse not better. We all know it from our life experiences. Then why do many people engage in it, particularly when talking and writing about social problems?

These words are hot-button words that are highly effective for recruiting supporters to your side. If you care more about generating avid support for your cause and less about finding a true resolution to the problem, these words will work well for you.

For example, telling your team that the other team is filled with privileged players, bonds your team against the opposing team.

Declaring to your tribe that a group of outsiders feels entitled to take advantage of your tribe creates unity as your tribe members bond with their righteous anger.

Saying to your supporters that the other side is easily offended, works to discount the validity of the other side’s viewpoint.

Many times, using words such Privileged, Entitled, and Offended is designed to create an emotional reaction in people. They are veiled insults. They carry lots of judgment and are loaded with assumptions. They are used as tools for creating tribal bonding and recruiting new supporters to the cause.

When people use these words to describe someone else or some other group, they are creating more tribal divisions and increased divisiveness. They are engaging in stereotyping and generalizations. The result is that they are making it less likely that there will be cooperation and eventual problem solving.

Maybe that is exactly what they want to happen. Maybe they benefit more from the tribal bonding and the outrage about the problem, and less from the actual resolution of the problem.

Here are some examples of substituting judgmental hot-button words for more neutral phrases.

Instead of calling someone Privileged, it could be pointed out that someone has more advantages than disadvantages.

Instead of saying he is Entitled, it could be explained that he believes that he has certain rights.

Instead of claiming she was Offended, it could be said that she feels there are ways in which people shouldn’t interact.

The words people use determine whether they want to start a fight, recruit supporters, or if they want to resolve a problem. If you or your tribe frequently uses those hot-button words, what are you and your tribe usually trying to do?