Erik Kondo – Page 3 – Conflict Manager

May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor – Erik Kondo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response to that is:

REALLY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May the odds be ever in their favor.

Learning from Fight Videos – Erik Kondo

Why do people watch “fight” videos?

Watching videos of other people fighting and engaging in violent confrontations is a hugely popular pastime. Videos of this nature regularly receive millions of views on YouTube and Facebook.

What are some of the reasons that drive people watch violence? Here are a few.

The entertainment value. Many people simply enjoy watching other people engage in violent activity.

One type of entertainment is the desire to watch someone “get what he or she deserves”. These videos require a clear cut Good Guy and Bad Guy to root for and against. Many times the video will be titled or subtitled in a manner that tells people who is who. For example, Gang Member Picks on the Wrong Guy, or Bully Gets His Ass Beat. These titles influence the viewer with the power of suggestion regardless of the true nature of the conflict.

Confirmation of a viewpoint. In this case, the video serves as proof/evidence of what someone already believes to be true. For example, you believe that a certain Group consistently exhibits bad behavior and thus you like to watching members of the Group behaving badly because it confirms your worldview.

This type of viewing is particularly popular among those who like to stereotype people by race, religion, gender, and occupation.

Learning. If you are truly watching a video to learn something, then the video must exemplify something you were not already aware of or something you didn’t know. There needs to be a takeaway point for further consideration. Watching videos of people getting attacked will not help you to not get attacked, unless you learn something from the incidents.

The focus of this writing is on #3 – How to learn something from a fight video.

In order to actually increase your understanding, you need to conceptualize how the video relates to your own potential behavior or the potential behavior of someone you may come into conflict with. For example, if you watch a video of a person “freezing” and you think that you would never freeze, or that the victim is just an unaware person, whereas you are always aware, then viewing this video teaches you nothing.

In this case, most likely you watch these videos due to their entertainment value for you, or the videos confirm your view that other people are helpless “sheep”, while you are not. Watching the videos becomes a means for you to feel superior.

But if you open yourself up to the idea that you too might “freeze” or be caught unaware in a similar situation, then the video has potential educational value for you.

When it comes to your own conflicts, there will be at least one human involved and that is you. The more you learn about other people’s behavior in conflict situations, the more you will learn about your own potential behavior in similar situations. If you think “I would never do that”, then you will not learn or increase your understanding on the subject.

Therefore, when you watch a conflict video, look for things occurring that surprised you, or that you didn’t think would happen. Watch it with and without sound. Ignore the title and descriptions. Come to your own conclusions. Recognize when events unfold in a manner different than you expected. Don’t just passively watch the video and make snarky comments.

Put yourself in the shoes of the victim/predator/combatants. Ask yourself, what would I do in a similar situation and why? What are other possible outcomes that could have happened? How would I have dealt with the aftermath of the conflict? Do other viewers notice aspects you didn’t? Try to determine if what happened was primarily situational or an example of systemic human behaviors.

If you don’t want to engage in this type of mental workout, that is fine too. But don’t kid yourself, you are not watching fight videos to learn, you are watching them for entertainment.

Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging by Sebastian Junger – Review by Erik Kondo

I just finished reading Tribe. At one hundred thirty five small sized pages, it is a quick and entertaining read.

I think this book is relevant to divisive modern times. The main takeaway I received from this book is of the importance of “belongingness” to human beings. Modern humans are the result of our long evolution. For most of this evolution, we have existed in small tribes in which our survival was directly linked to being a member of a smoothly functioning and cooperative tribe. Modern life has changed all of that. We no longer need a tribe to physically survive. The problem is that while we may not “need” a tribe for survival, our well-being still requires this feeling of “belongingness”.

Throughout the book, Mr. Junger provides examples of how belongingness benefits people even when their circumstances are grim due to warfare, natural disasters, and more. In fact, in many cases it is the very existence of these adverse circumstances that created the tribal bonds.

In my opinion, many of political/social/special interest groups have become the default “tribe” for those people lacking this feeling of belongingness. The unfortunate result is many people whose very identity is bound to increasingly radicalized tribal views. At this point, the benefits of the tribe are far outweighed by its many disadvantages to both the tribe members and society at large.

“Every woman should learn this choke.”- Well, should they really? – Erik Kondo

“Every woman should learn this choke.”– Well, should they really? The above statement is an opinion about the widely viewed “Gracie Choke” technique video to be used against sexual assault. It seems that a number of people agree with it. On the surface, it sounds reasonable. After all, why not? What harm does knowing something create? (Full video here)

But let’s deconstruct it and see what that statement really means.

“Every woman” really means “most physically fit women”. For example, women with only one functioning hand, or have limited grip strength, or are very young or are old are not the ones being considered here. A “choke” is a technique. “to learn” really means “to be able to learn and execute” “should” really means “because it will work” AND there is a reasonable possibility of needing to use it.

Therefore, we now have the opinion statement expand to say:

“So and So thinks that most physically fit women are able to learn and execute this technique AND there is a reasonable likelihood that they will be in a situation where they need to make it “work” AND it will “work” against most types of male attackers.”

When it comes to a physical self-defense technique, what does it mean to “work”?

In my opinion, the most useful criteria come from Rory Miller’s Golden Move, where the Move has the effect of:

Damaging your attacker
Weakening his or her position.
Strengthening your position.
Protects you from damage.

A technique is a sequential set of one or more moves. Therefore, a technique that “works”, has a high probability of meeting ALL of the above criteria.

If it causes your attacker to be unconscious or dead, you have damaged him or her.
If your attacker is unconscious or dead, you have weakened his or her position.
If your attacker is unconscious or dead, you have strengthened your position.
If your attacker is unconscious or dead, you are now protected from damage from him.

At first glance, it seems like the choke, meets all the criteria for “working”. But, not so fast, there is one more element to consider. That element is time.

According to the extended video it takes “6 seconds” for the technique to be effective. Is that an average of 6 seconds, where some people execute it in two or three seconds and others in 10 or 15 seconds against the “average” attacker? Or is that the minimum time it takes for a skilled practitioner to make it “work”?

Given that it is highly unlikely a scientific choke study was done to determine an “average” of 6 seconds. Most likely, it takes a skilled practitioner 6 seconds, and a less skilled practitioner longer. Is that 8, 10, 15 seconds or more? I don’t know, and my guess is that nobody else knows either.

The reason the time lag is important is because of what could be happening while the woman’s hands and legs are occupied with the technique and she is waiting for it to take effect. Assuming that the close body position doesn’t allow the attacker to engage in power full punching, it still does allow for the possibility that the attacker might be able to use his free body parts to:

Gouge and claw the woman’s eyes.
Crush her wind pipe.
Squeeze and choke her along neck with this hand(s).
Drive this thumb or fingers into pressure points in her neck.
Rip off her ear.
Drive his finger into her ear canal.
Drive his fingers into her nose.
Bite her, rip, and tear her flesh.
Dig his knuckles deep into her ribs.
Drive his head into her face.
Drive his forearm into and across her face and or throat.
Utilize short whip-like facial strikes.
Reach and deploy a concealed weapon such as a knife or other sharp object.
And other types of related of close quarter infighting attacks.

All of this could be done in the time it takes for the technique to take effect. In reality, during this time period, it is probable that

The attacker is not damaged.
The attacker’s position is not worsened.
The woman’s position is not improved.
he woman is taking damage.

In this case, the technique meets all the requirements for being the exact opposite of a Golden Technique.

When someone is being choked in a real life confrontation, they have no idea of whether the choker is only trying to knock them unconscious, or is actually trying to kill them. Therefore, someone who is being choked is likely to be “fighting back” for his life and will use any and all means available.

Choking requires taking away excess space which means getting very tight to the person and limiting his movements. The woman must cease her escape response and focus all her efforts on attacking. That requires a mental switch from fear based “get away” actions to anger based “attack the attacker” actions. In the situation envisioned, the attacker now no longer has the option to willingly stop his attack and disengage. He is literally being forced to stay and engage in what could be a life or death struggle.

If the attacker’s actions cause the woman’s choke to fail, she is now positioned very close to him. And she has likely expended a great deal of energy in trying to make it “work”. What is her next option? Instruction of a technique is incomplete without addressing what to do if it fails.

The next question is “How exactly is this technique learned?” This is a physical technique that requires repeated physical practice to learn. The student has to learn proper hand position and wrist extension. She needs to understand the proper angles of to apply force. Some people will take much longer than others. But everyone will need lots of practice time.

Regardless, to become reliably proficient, she would have to practice it against a wide variety of men of different weight, neck sizes, and musculature. Fat necks, thin necks, skinny necks, muscular necks, sweaty necks, heavy shirts, light shirts, tight shirts, loose shirts, sweat shirts, dress shirts are some of the types of men and clothes she needs to practice against and with (and what about a person with no shirt?).

She also needs to be able to execute the technique in the scenario intended for its use. Since the choke is promoted as a defense against a stranger rape attack, for realism, she needs to practice with men who she is not psychologically comfortable training with. Men who can create the real fear and feeling sexually assaulting her. These men would have to violently force themselves on top of her and between her legs in order to create both the physical position and the mental stress required to realistically “practice” execution and condition her emotionally.

They would also have to resist in manner consistent with someone who thinks he is being choked to death. And as with many types of learned physical techniques, she would need to periodically refresh her skills for her entire life in order to not forget how to do it.

The final issue is whether this type of practice will cause her to fixate on a type of attack that is both statistically unlikely to happen and also doesn’t represent the type of sexual assault that usually does happen to women. The vast majority of women are assaulted by men they know or are in some type of a relationship with. They don’t actively resist, and they don’t report the crime. And in many cases alcohol is involved which impairs their ability to execute physical defense.

How will the choke be used in these circumstances? Remember, any choke comes with the possibly of causing death. In order to choke someone, you must be willing to take the chance you will inadvertently kill him or her. That reality requires a certain mindset and emotional state to use it in a conflict.

On the flip side there ARE a number of benefits from learning this choke that do apply to physical self-defense. But that doesn’t mean “every woman should learn this choke”. It means that some women who choose to engaging in this type of training may benefit in the following manner if they train realistically.

They would realize that just like women, men vary greatly in not only in body type, but in willingness to endure pain and willingness to continue to attack when faced with determined resistance. This fact may seem obvious, but how would a woman who never engaged in head to head competition with a variety of men know that? Particularly, a woman who believes (has been repeatedly told) that all men are stronger than all women?
They would realize that the manner in which this choke can be broken provides the key to counter-attacking in a real life sexual assault. All the nasty infighting tactics mentioned previously are effective ones for women to use if they find themselves in this type of situation. By understanding what would cause themselves to disengage their own chokes, they may understand what may cause their attackers to disengage their attacks.
They would realize that what they have been told about learning specific self-defense techniques to deal with specific types of attacks is unlikely to help them. For most people, skilled based physical techniques are likely to fail under stress. But instinctive actions that have been conditioned under stress based scenarios have a higher likelihood of success.
They would benefit from learning physical skills that require a combination of flexibility, strength, coordination, timing, and confidence. Skill building is generally very beneficial even if you never apply the skill in real life.
As long as they know the practical limitations of their techniques, they will benefit from the learning process itself. Specifically, learning when NOT to attempt to use certain techniques is a valuable part of this learning process.
Assuming realistic practice, they will develop the mindset and mental conditioning needed to have a greater chance of successfully resist an assault.
They will be in a supportive environment with other women and men who all have the same goal of improving their ability to successfully defend themselves from a physical attack.

When it comes to whether or not “every woman (or man) should do something”. It is important to recognize who else benefits from what they all “should be doing”. Is it all women as implied, or is it really someone or something else?

There is a big difference between something being beneficial for SOME women and ALL women, because something that may help some women in some situations may also hurt other women in other situations.

Stop Using Fear Based Marketing – Randy King and Erik Kondo

Erik: Randy, you wrote a great blog piece on why reality based martial arts instructors should stop using fear marketing to attract students. I think it makes great points and I have included it below:

Randy’s Post:

Reality-based martial artists, stop it. Stop using fear-based marketing, you’re a bunch of asses. I cannot stand people using fear as a motivator to make people buy things from them. Why – why do you feel the need to frighten people all the time about violence when, statistically speaking, they’re probably never gonna see it? Why are you putting up reports from your local newspapers all over your advertising listing all the bad things that have happened, out of context?

So many things in there happen to people whose jobs put them in the line of danger, or those who exist in a world where violence is very common. It’s not “local housewife walks down to store and gets attacked” – which happens rarely, stranger danger being the least common thing yet the most commonly marketed method to get people into self defense gyms. It’s always “man stabbed three times by girlfriend” – yeah, that happened, but what was the context of it? Taking something from one tiny little statistic and then using that to blitz a marketing campaign on social media, or on flyers, or in schools is low, and it makes all of us look bad.

If you’re not a good enough instructor to bring students in and retain them on your merits, if you have to scare the hell out of them to make them stay out of fear that when they leave your gym they will be attacked by random ninjas and vigilantes and rapists all the time … stop teaching! Just stop – you’re not doing anybody any favors. If you need to keep people in by making sure they leave terrified, or you bring them in by making them terrified – it’s ridiculous.

There’s a difference between fear-based marketing and awareness campaigns for what is happening. We, for example put up things that are happening in Edmonton, where we’re based, but we put up the context of it, we put up the whole news story – not a sound bite. Stop jumping into sound bite Fox news lifestyle where it’s all about propagating fear and making everybody suspicious of everybody else.

(Stop hitting the panic button! Students who you bring in with fear campaigns will not stay!)

Yes – violence does happen. Usually it happens from people that you know, usually with that violence – to quote Marc MacYoung – it has instructions on how to stop it. “Shut the fuck up and leave” – you shut the fuck up and leave, you’re good. Usually, bad things happen to people in bad situations – they go to places they shouldn’t go, they don’t know the rules, they’re in the wrong spot. Rory Miller has a whole bunch of things listed in his book, Facing violence about this. But to use bad things to profit your own business to me is probably one of the dirtiest, most shameful things you can possibly do.

Erik: Some Reality Based Martial Arts instructors are just one category of what I call the Merchants of Fear. The Merchants profit when people are afraid. Sometimes the Merchants are motivated only by profit. Other times, they may be promoting a worthwhile social cause (stopping violence against women for example). But the end result is still the creation of a culture of fear.

One primary audience for the Merchants of Fear are middle class women who are either in college or young working professionals. This audience typically has the disposable income to buy products. They are coveted by media advertisers. They have the time and passion to support their cause of choice.

The Merchants benefit when it’s audience:

Buys their personal safety products.
Attends their self-defense training programs.
Watch and read their crime centric sensational news stories.
Demand their greater police visibility and presence.
Support their Anti-Rape and Anti-Violence Organizations.

Some of the Merchants send out varying messages that evolve around the same general theme. All women are likely victims. All women are constantly being assaulted in one form or another. All women need this type of weapon, special training, or society to protect them. Scary statistics such as 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted are prominently quoted.

Suggestions that women have the natural resources/ability to defend themselves from assault in certain situations are sometimes denigrated as “victim blaming”. Some of the Merchants of Fear depend upon their target audience’s sense of victimization to further their respective businesses and causes.

The Merchants gain from its audience’s reduced Peace of Mind. Certain social causes pit the needs of the Individual against the needs of the Cause. The greater the victimization that appears to be occurring, the greater the support for the Cause. Society loses by increased feelings of helpless and fear, but the Cause wins more support.

Political candidates are increasing using the tactics of the Merchants of Fear to attract supporters.

Erik: Randy is there anything else you would like to add?

Randy: I have always found that there are two types of clients. Proactive and curative. The second group are training because something bad had happened to them. If you use fear based marketing, you not only rub their experience in their face for “not training sooner” (which is a giant pile of bullshit and you should know that!) you also run a huge risk of re-traumatizing them through your program.

The first group which thankfully is far larger, if you recruit them through fear, the only way to keep them is through the same method. You have to keep them scared, to pay your bills. If creating victims to scared to leave their home so that you get rich is how you roll…I hope that we never meet.

Your Self-Defense Training a Stalled “A Lie-To-Children”? – Erik Kondo

Note: This article is a continuation of last month’s article on the Red, Green, Grey, and Blue Zones model for self-defense training.

A Lie-To-Children is defined as “a phrase that describes a simplified explanation of technical or complex subjects as a teaching method for children and laypeople.”

There are four main categories of self-defense training. Almost all self-defense training can be described by one or a combination of them.

Three of them can be thought of as Lies-To-Children, only one of them is not.

The first two of these have the positive effect of helping students deal with low level violence that is unlikely to escalate into high level violence. But this type of training doesn’t provide its students with the means to differentiate between potential low and high level violence. And the means to avoid and deal with high level violence.

The third focuses on high level violence, but it also doesn’t provide the means to differentiate between low and high level violence. It also doesn’t provide knowledge on how to avoid and deal with the aftermath of violence.

Only the fourth deals with the multiple aspects of avoiding a variety of levels of violence, differentiating between the levels, dealing with the levels, and the resulting aftermath.

Fortunately, Lies-To-Children can be used as starting points. The provide a basic, but flawed understanding that can be reworked and expanded into deeper understanding.

The Four Categories

Empowerment Based Self-Defense is really about giving people permission to physically fight back (reversing their passive social conditioning). It uses the person’s natural capabilities which is encouraged through Green Zone training.

It can be identified by its use of positive feedback for all self-defense actions regardless of how ineffective the actions actually would be against a determined attacker. The goal is to make the student feel “empowered”.

What it doesn’t do is:

Give students the knowledge to recognize, avoid, and assess danger. (Grey Zone).
Give them the actual physical skills to deal with a serious assault. (Red Zone)
Give them an understanding of the aftermath of violence (Blue Zone).

2. Martial Arts Based Self-Defense is about developing physical skills and spiritual qualities to deal with violence through Green Zone training.

It can be identified by its use of repetitive physical training of “fighting” techniques to build mastery. This is commonly (incorrectly) thought of as “muscle memory”.

What it doesn’t do is.

Give students the knowledge to recognize, avoid, and assess danger. (Grey Zone).
Give them the actual physical skills to deal with high level violence. (Red Zone).
Give them an understanding of the aftermath of violence (Blue Zone)

3. Combat Based Self-Defense is about focusing on relatively rare situations of high level violence and the use of lethal force usually done through Green Zone training.

This type of training can typically be identified by its kill or be killed attitude for all levels of violence for civilians.

In the best case, this type of training provides the student the means to deal with limited types of high level violence. In the worst case, it provides only the illusion of having the means to deal with high level violence.

In both cases, what it doesn’t do is.

Give students the knowledge to recognize, avoid, and assess danger. (Grey Zone).
Give them the means to deal with low level violence. (Usually Green Zone)
Give them an understanding of the aftermath of violence (Blue Zone)

These first three categories have much in common and a few differences. Their approaches are different. But in many respects they all end up in the same place.

What “stalled” means

What the above types of training do is to provide a starting point for future comprehensive self-defense training. But only if the student is willing to recognize the stalled nature of his or her current training. Stalled training is incomplete training that no longer advances. There are flaws and gaps in it. For students to move forward, they must acknowledge they are stalled and be open to expanding upon their current knowledge and training system.

This training can be thought of as a foundation that can be built upon. But only after certain aspects of it are removed and rebuilt.

Comprehensive Self-Defense training that is not a stalled Lie-To-Children is made up of the understanding of:

Recognizing, Avoiding, and Assessing all levels of violence. (Grey Zone)
Dealing with the legal, ethical, and other societal aftermath of violence. (Blue Zone)
Dealing with high level violence, the Fear Response, and other associated behavioral issues. (Red Zone)
Dealing with low level violence, not escalating it into high level violence, the associated behavioral issues, and more. (Green Zone)

The above areas can also be described by Rory Miller’s 7 Aspects of Self-Defense, the Hand of Self-defense training as described by Marc MacYoung, and the prevention, intervention, and mitigation of aspects of my 5D’s of Self-defense. It really doesn’t matter what model you use, also long as all the elements are included.

The Green Zone, Red Zone, Grey Zone, and Blue Zone – Do You Train only for the Green Zone? – Erik Kondo

When most people think of martial arts based self-defense, they think of an athletic and skilled martial artist beating up an attacker. And most effective martial arts training does in fact, teach you how to win a fight. When you are in the process of winning, you are aggressive, confident, and performing well. You are damaging your opponent and he or she is not damaging you. You are in a strong position and your opponent is in a weak position. Whether you dispatch your opponent with karate, jujitsu, MMA or some other style, it doesn’t really matter. Assuming you have reasonable skill, whatever techniques you apply, they will most likely do the job. You are in the Green Zone.

When you are in the Green Zone, you are performing at your optimum. As long as you can stay in the Green Zone, you are likely to defeat or successfully disengage from your opponent. The problem is that in a true self-defense situation, your attacker doesn’t want to let you fight back in the Green Zone. He or she wants you to be the Red Zone. The Red Zone is where you are in the process of losing. You are being overwhelmed. You are fearful or frozen. You are unsure of how to respond. You are a psychological and physiological mess. You are taking damage and not damaging your assailant. You are in a weak position and he or she is in a strong position. You are NOT performing at an optimum level.

Most traditional martial arts training doesn’t teach you how to deal with the Red Zone. It teaches you how to fight when you are in the Green Zone. Realistic physical self-defense requires that you know how to get out of the Red Zone and into the Green Zone before it’s too late.

Prior to a physical conflict, you are in the Gray Zone. From the Gray Zone it is a quick transition to either losing in the Red Zone or winning in the Green Zone. Your assailant’s goal is to get you into the Red Zone as quickly and as easily as possible. He doesn’t want to risk having to deal with you in the Green Zone. Therefore, he uses tactics such as an ambush, deception, a weapon(s), superior numbers, etc. to overwhelm you. He uses the Golden Attack (See Rory Miller’s Golden Move). The goal of the Golden Attack is use overwhelming violence to:

Damage you.
Prevent damage to him.
Worsen your position.
Improve his position.

Once you are put into the Red Zone, you may never get out and apply your Green Zone skills. And that is exactly what your attacker intends to happen.

Conversely, if you find yourself starting off in the Green Zone, most likely it is because you are illegally fighting and not in a self-defense situation. In this case, dispatching your opponent with your martial arts skills may land you in jail or in civil court.

Some martial arts instructors have circumvented the reality of the Red Zone by advocating the use of a Pre-emptive Strike against the Bad Guy. In this case, it is you that launches the first attack. You initiate the transition from the Grey Zone into the Green Zone. For simplicity and ease of teaching, the instructor ignored/justifies the legal aspects of the Pre-emptive Strike with the use of Bad Guy labeling (opponent is a known murderer/rapist/etc.) But as a practical matter, you now are the one that has used the Golden Attack. And more than likely, you will need to articulate why you did what you did, to the police and possibly a judge and jury.

What happens after a violent incident is the Blue Zone. It is here that you will have to explain your actions to society as to why your response was legal self-defense. In order to do so, you need to know how the law applies to your situation. You need to articulate the reasoning for your actions beyond only stating that “you were afraid for your life”.

Golden Feed vs. Golden Attack

It is typical for martial arts techniques to be demonstrated and taught in response to a simulated “attack”. This attack is really a Golden Feed disguised as a Golden Attack. It is a Golden Feed when:

You are mentally and physically prepared to respond.
You are literally waiting for the “attack” to happen, which then acts as the trigger for your prepared response.
The “attack” doesn’t damage you, prevent damage to your opponent, weaken your position, strengthen your opponent’s position
You are not concerned with the negative consequences of your response, which means you have full conviction that your response is the “right” thing to do.
Your opponent’s attack was singular in nature. For example, he only tries to punch or grab you but then does nothing else. As a result, you are able to respond with multiple movements to his one movement.

To summarize, your opponent’s “attack” is actually a setup for you to launch your own Golden Attack. To the uninformed, it may look as if you are training from the Red Zone, but you are actually in the Green Zone.

Situational Awareness is only part of the Grey Zone

Most traditional self-defense instruction talks frequently about the importance of situational awareness. The basic premise is that by being aware of your surroundings you can avoid being assaulted and ending up in the Red Zone. The other aspect is that by demonstrating that you are an aware person, you can deter potential attackers. These are two important aspects of the Grey Zone, but there are more. Situational awareness is only a subset of the Grey Zone.

The Grey Zone is the series of events that occur before a potential or actual assault. Maybe you are assaulted, or maybe you are not. The Grey Zone is a place of uncertainty.

You might be aware of an impending threat, but that doesn’t mean you know how to deal with that particular threat. Or possibly, you are mentally aware of your surroundings, yet you don’t “see” the threat developing because you don’t recognize it as such. Realizing that you have problem doesn’t mean you know exactly what the problem is, or that you have the knowledge and means to fix it.

In the Grey Zone, your emotional Monkey Brain may influence you to act in a manner that you intellectually know is contrary to your best interests, but you do it anyway. Dealing with the Grey Zone requires not only situational awareness, but knowledge of criminal behavior, violence dynamics, environmental knowledge, understanding your own abilities and limitations, and above all good judgement and critical thinking.

No matter how proficient you are at fighting in the Green Zone, unless you have learned to avoid or survive the Red Zone, navigate the Grey Zone, and mitigate the Blue Zone, your self-defense training is deficient.

Clint Overland on the Red Zone

“I like being other people’s Red Zone. I start where most people have to build up to.

Say that you have made promises to either do something. Pay a debt or deliver a product at a certain price for a certain amount and you decided to welch on your word. And maybe you have the balls to back it up, and the ones you lied to don’t have the strength to discipline you for your indiscretions. But they have the money. That’s where a hard crew comes in. We enforce their will by starting at the Red Zone.

Now you as the Welcher may be a total bad ass. A walking Martial arts legend. Death on Two legs.

I am going to know this because I have researched you. This helps me formulate my plan of action. My crew and I will do it on you when you are least expecting it. First we, pepper spray you in the face, and then taze you while you’re screaming. Next, while you’re down, two of us take hammers to your legs and arms. Removing the threat to us. This is why pros work in Red Zones. Your best option is too stay out of them.”

Terry Trahan on the Red Zone

“The Red Zone is a paradox. You don’t want to be there by accident. But, it is the place you want to push your opponent to be as soon as physical conflict becomes your tool to end the situation.

Once that switch has been flipped, everything you do should have two purposes;

1) make sure you go home, and 2) overwhelm your opponent in order to end it quickly.

If you are being pre-emptive, you don’t initiate violence until everything is lined up in your favor: position, weapons, allies, whatever you have to tip the odds your way, and throw your opponent into his Red Zone.

If all of your situational and environmental awareness has failed, and you are in a reactive mode, you must force your attacker into his Red Zone as quickly as you can. Aggression, forward drive, environmental control and savageness until you can make your exit.

By overwhelming him, you put yourself in control, and keep him spiraling and falling into his Red Zone.”

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.

Self-Defense “Moves”: The Good, Bad and the Ugly – Erik Kondo

Popular movies such as Miss Congeniality have given the idea of self-defense “Moves” popular appeal, particularly among women. In the case of the movie, the Hollywood “Moves” targeted S.I.N.G. (Solar Plexus, Instep, Nose, Groin). Generally speaking, men are more interesting in learning how to “fight”, while women are more interested in learning self-defense “Moves” to repel sexual assault.

I am going to focus on the Good, Bad, and Ugly of instructing self-defense “Moves” for women.

The BAD of Some Self-Defense Moves

If you are using a self-defense Move, then you are being attacked. Knowing Moves don’t help you prevent from being attacked in the first place.
Moves assume that the victim will actually “fight back” as opposed to being frozen in fear.
Learned Moves are subject to the Forgetting Curve meaning that most of what is “learned” will soon be forgotten anyway in an exponential manner.
Knowing how to do a Move, doesn’t mean you know when to do the Move and when not to do it.
The implication of an instructed Move is that it is better than an instinctive response. Therefore, the Move is intended to replace instinctive actions. According to research, 80% of women who actively resist in some manner are successful in stopping the assault. For the instructed Move to be reliable and worthwhile, it needs to have an even higher success rate than instinctive actions.
Learning a Move, doesn’t mean you know what to do if the Move fails to work as intended.
The instruction of Moves tends to lead students to believe that there is a single right way and many wrong ways to act as opposed to better and worse ways of responding.

The UGLY of Some Self-Defense Moves

Learning these Moves, gives you false confidence, and makes you think you can do things that you really can’t. This false confidence encourages a tendency for you to put yourself in risky situations that you might have otherwise avoided.
These Moves place you in more vulnerable position if the Move fails.
Instruction of these “killer” Moves promote the misleading impression that all assaults come from strangers and are life and death situations.
These Moves when used without judgement are likely to escalate situations as opposed to de-escalating or providing the opportunity to escape.

The GOOD of Some Self-Defense Moves

Good self-defense Moves are not really Moves at all. They are effective responses in certain situations.
Good Responses are modifications of instinctive actions that you are likely to do anyway.
Good Responses are taught to beginners through the use of conditioning as opposed to rote instruction.
Good Responses are taught to beginners in manner that is more about the experience of the instruction and less about what is actually learned. Experiences tend to be remembered while instruction is not.
Good Responses have a higher probability of making the situation better and a lower probability of making the situation worse.
Good Responses encourage “breaking the freeze”.
Instruction of Good Responses “gives permission” to act and break out of socially conditioned scripts and reactions.
Good Responses encourage critical and dynamic thinking.
Good Responses take into consideration a person’s potential emotional, psychological and physiological state.
Good Responses incorporate ethical and legal considerations.
Good Responses can deal with both of the scenarios described below:

In the following two scenarios, the factors are the exact opposite which is an illustration of how much variability is involved in assaults.

SCENARIO #1:

The assailant is a stranger. (creepy guy, dangerous serial predator)
He attacks from an ambush. (surprise attack)
The attack occurs in a public place. (parking lot, public park, sidewalk, etc.)
The attacker forces victim into secluded area. (dark alley, behind a bush)
The attacker uses a weapon and/or high physical force. (knife, gun, hard strikes, strangles, etc.)
The victim fights back unsuccessfully. (flails, kicks, screams, etc.)
The victim reports the crime to the police. (right after the attack)

SCENARIO #2:

The assailant is known to the victim. (friend, date, boyfriend, acquaintance, family member, co-worker, boss, etc.)
There is a buildup to the assault. (interview, boundary testing, etc.)
The assault happens in private area. (apartment, dorm room, private vehicle, etc.)
The victim went voluntarily to the assault location. (wanted to go, was manipulated into going)
The assailant doesn’t use a weapon, uses coercion or minimal force.
The victim doesn’t fight back. (frozen in fear, incapacitated by drugs/alcohol, didn’t want to make the assailant angry, unwilling because of existing relationship)
The victim doesn’t report the crime to the police. (doesn’t tell anybody, or only after a long period of time)

The notion of Self-defense “Moves” is ingrained in the public and in many self-defense instructors. Since it is unlikely that this thinking will disappear any time soon, effective “Moves” should focus on the GOOD and avoid the BAD and UGLY.

Monkey Lessons – Erik Kondo

Everybody loves when the underdog defeats the bully. But what about when you are the stronger or more skilled one? How do you justify beating someone else senseless? Well, you go with the next best thing. You claim the recipient of your beating deserved it. Now, all is right with your world. You were just teaching a much needed lesson to a misbehaving cretin.

Using Rory Miller’s terms for types of social violence, you were not engaging in a Monkey Dance, you were just administrating a much needed Educational Beatdown.

The internet is filled with videos of one person beating another to a pulp. When one of the commenters sides with the Victor, he or she will typically justify the beating with various claims such as:

1. The Victim deserved it because of his prior actions (Blaming the victim).
2. The Victim deserved it because of he was a scumbag (Othering the victim).
3. The Victim deserved it because he was dangerous and could have caused harm to the Victor (Fearing the victim).
4. The Victim deserved it because his “type” always acts in this kind of anti-social manner (Stereotyping the victim).

In order to really feel good about the beating, it needs to be established that the Victim had it coming to him or her. The above four methods show how people justify their support for the use of force, including excessive force. Once they can establish in their mind that the Victim deserved whatever he or she received, they can enjoy the beating without guilt. In their minds, it’s not that they are racist, bigoted, or sexist, they just want to see justice served.

Many acts of violence are in essence enforcement actions of some real or perceived boundary (social rule) violation. Almost all enforcement actions can be categorized as Under-Enforcement (too little), Over-Enforcement (too much), or appropriate for the situation. How the enforcement is viewed is in the eye of the beholder(s). This sounds all well and good, until we realize that many times the Beholder is your Monkey Brain/limbic system.

Instead of using your Human/rational brain to evaluate the violation (real or perceived) and formulate the best level of response, your Monkey/emotional Brain jumps at the chance to teach someone a lesson. But in order to teach someone a lesson, you also need to have the Means and Opportunity to do so (as in Intent, Means, Opportunity). The greater your advantage (Means) relative to the recipient of your lesson, the more incentive your Monkey/Ego has to want to use it.

When people talk about “how cash burns a hole in your pocket”, they are talking about how the simple act of having available money in your pocket means you feel the need to spend it. Cash is the Means that drives you to seek the Opportunity to spend it, even if your original Intent to purchase was relatively low. Your Monkey wants you to spend the cash, even through your Human/rational brain knows you need to spend the cash on your rent and groceries for your family.

Let’s assume your Monkey wants to give out behavioral lessons to those it feels deserve them. Your Monkey needs to have three things:

The Intent to give a lesson to a particular person, and the Means to give the lesson to that person, and the Opportunity to give the lesson to that person.

The combination of Intent and Means is the “cash” in your pocket. Now, you only need the Opportunity to spend it. The higher the magnitude of your Intent and Means, the more likely you are going to encounter an Opportunity to provide a lesson to someone. Another way to look at it, is that you have a “chip on your shoulder” and you are just waiting for someone to knock it off.

Let’s say you carry a weapon and/or train in “combative arts” for self-protection. Weapons and skills are effectively force multipliers which provide you with a greater magnitude of Means. If you also happen to be the kind of person that habitually,

1. blames certain groups of people for wrongdoing,
2. considers certain groups of people less than you, (othering)
3. believes certain groups of people to be dangerous (fearful)
4. sees certain types of groups as all acting in the same type of anti-social manner, (stereotyping)

then, it is likely, you are predisposed to wanting (having the Intention) to give a person in this group a lesson. And you will jump at the first Opportunity to do so.

Your Monkey/limbic brain is only concerned with the here now. It is not concerned with the consequences of its actions. It doesn’t consider that the consequences of “giving a lesson” may be that you go to prison, and/or spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, and/or you are seriously injured/killed, and/or you seriously injure/kill “your student”, or you become a victim of a revenge action by “your students” friends and family, and/or some other undesirable consequence.

Now you are faced a paradox. You carry a weapon and/or train in the combative arts as a way to keep yourself safer. Yet, in fact, these actions actually have the effect of subjecting you to more risk of destroying your life. Which, in effect, puts you at risk.

It’s not your weapon or your training that puts you at-risk. It is the influence of your Monkey/limbic brain. One way for you to mitigate the risk created by your increase in Means is to learn to control your Monkey/limbic brain with your Human/conscious brain via critical thinking and non-emotional decision making.

Another would be to reduce your tendency to engage in the blaming/othering/fearing/stereotyping certain of groups of people. That requires acknowledging and taking steps to lower your implicit bias against said groups.

In other words, sometimes the biggest threat to your personal safety is you.