Erik Kondo – Page 4 – Conflict Manager

Conflict Management Literacy, Part II – Erik Kondo

This is a continuing series on the many aspects of Conflict Management Literacy.

Cost vs. Benefit Analysis a/k/a Risk vs. Reward

Let’s start with the problem of crime. Most people (non-criminals) would agree that crime is undesirable. So is anything that decreases crime desirable? Well, actually not. If we eliminate the human population, we have also wipe out crime. Almost all people would find this to be an undesirable solution. The cost is too high. What we want to do is reduce the rate of crime where the crime rate is the number of incidents per unit of population. But we also want to reduce the crime rate in a manner that doesn’t greatly affect our everyday lives. We want a solution that has a low cost to implement, yet provides the benefit of a lower crime rate.

All solutions to existing problems have some sort of cost (risk) vs. benefit (reward) analysis associated with them. If the solution has no associated cost, then it would just get done, and the problem would be eliminated. For example, as a society, we don’t have a significant problem with people punching themselves in the face on a regular basis. This is because the solution is free – just don’t do it. It cost you nothing to not punch yourself and you reap the benefits. The no cost solution translates into no problem.

On the other hand, society does have a problem with people punching other people in the face. The solution to this problem has an associated cost. The higher the cost to solve, the greater and longer term the societal problem. For example, in order to deter people from punching other people, society enforces a cost on the Punchers (fines, prison terms, etc.). This cost is intended to change the cost vs. benefit analysis of the Punchers.

The Punchers are punching as a solution to their particular perceived problem (rational or irrational, strategic or Monkey Brain driven, punching is still intended as a solution to something). Punchers are trying to solve their problems by punching. Thus, punching provides a Benefit at an associated Cost. Raise the Cost and the Benefit may no longer be worth the Cost. The purpose of deterrence is to raise the cost so that the benefit becomes less desirable or not worth the cost.

Society may raise the cost of punching by increasing the penalties given to Punchers. But enforcing these penalties has an associated cost to society. Besides the legal and incarceration costs, putting the household breadwinner in jail creates dependent families, single parent households, etc. If these costs are deemed to be too high, the proposed solution doesn’t get implemented. It is cheaper to deal with the cost of people being punched, than it is to try to eliminate the problem (reap the benefit).

Now take a look at any number of societal problems that don’t seem to get solved over time – sexual assault, police brutality, inner-city violence, domestic violence, mass shootings, racism, sexism, etc. Eliminating or reducing each of the problems would provide a benefit to society. But that result would come at a cost to society. When problems don’t get solved, society (or those that control society) has deemed (rightly or wrongly) that the cost of solving the problem is not worth the benefit. Changing the cost vs. benefit analysis, changes which problems get solved and/or which get priority to be solved.

Correlation vs. Causation

One commonly misunderstood concept is the relationship between Correlation and Causation. One method to eliminate or reduce a problem is to eliminate or reduce the source of the problem. In this case, the Source is a cause of the problem. The Source could be the only cause of the problem or it could be one of many causes of the problem. But there exists a direct causal link between the Source and the Problem. Reducing the Source, reduces the Problem. We can represent this situation by the equation

(Factors)(Source) = Problem (This is made up equation for illustration purposes only!)

When two entities are correlated it means that they follow the same pattern. Graphically, this pattern could be Crime Rate vs. Time. For example, in the past twenty years in the US, the Crime Rate has decreased as represented by a downward sloping line (where y-axis is the Crime Rate and the x-axis is Time).

Over the past twenty years, Other Things have also decreased with time. When those Other Things are graphed next to the Crime Rate, if the lines look similar on the graph, then the Crime Rate correlates with them. Or if the graph of the Other Things is a mirror image, then those Other Things inversely-correlate with the Crime Rate (Ok, that’s a simplification, but you get the idea).

People who don’t understand correlation will look at graphs of correlating events/incidents/rates/etc. and assume causation between them. The mistaken assumption is that because the graphs look similar there must be a cause and effect relationship. When in fact, there might be one and there might NOT be one. Correlation graphs do not give enough information to make that determination.

Now ask yourself, how many people, politicians, Pro-gun activists, Anti-gun activists, Hard on Crime, Pro-Prison Reform, etc. have claimed that since their Thing/Anti-Thing is correlated or inversely-correlated with the lower crime rate that their Thing/Anti-Thing is actually the cause of the lower crime rate? My answer is – A LOT. They offer correlation as proof when they actually need to prove causation.

Going back to the above equation, the Source becomes the Thing

(Factors)(Thing) = Problem

in the real world ,it looks like (Well, kind of sort of, let’s not quibble on details)

(F1)(F2)(F3)(F4)(Fn)(Thing) = Problem

Where the F’s are the Factors involved and there are N number of Factors. In order to prove causation, ALL the Factors must be accounted for. You can NOT assume that the other Factors remain constant and that only the Thing changes to affect the Problem.

For example, maybe less legal restrictions (F1) on concealed carry weapon holders has caused the lower crime rate. Or maybe, less legal restrictions (F1) on CCW has caused the crime rate to be LESS low than it would have been otherwise (that means that less restrictions causes a higher crime rate). In both examples, less restrictions will correlate with a lower crime rate. We have no idea, since all the factors (F2,F3,F4, Fn…) have not been accounted for.

To summarize, those that claim that because Some Thing correlates or inversely-correlates with Some Other Thing, that it causes or reduces Some Other Thing, and those that don’t take into account the Cost vs. Benefit Analysis in problem solving are effectively illiterate in these aspects of conflict management.

Next time, the Inverted U-Curve and effect of False Positives on Risk Assessments.

Conflict Management Literacy, Part 1 – Erik Kondo

What does it mean to be literate in something? The general answer is that you are well versed in the various aspects of the subject.

For example, someone who is Financially Literate has a strong understanding of how to deal with money on a personal and professional level. On the other hand, someone who is Financially Illiterate does not understand the financial world. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It makes them ignorant of “how monetary things work”.

Someone who is Literate in Conflict Management has knowledge and understanding of the many aspects of dealing with interpersonal human conflicts. Having the ability to fight or physically defend yourself doesn’t necessarily make you literate in Conflict Management. But it may make you literate in one aspect of Conflict Management.

Rory Miller has defined the Seven Aspects of Self-defense. They are:

Legal and Ethical
Violence Dynamics
Prevention
Counter-Assault
The Freeze
The Fight
The Aftermath

Using this framework, Self-Defense Literacy requires having a working knowledge, understanding, and ability to apply all of these seven areas, not just a few of them. Literacy means being well rounded in multiple areas, not just a specialist in a single area.

A large part of Conflict Management (Self-defense, personal safety, etc.) revolves around the ability to make critical decisions, assessments, and problem solve. These aspects require an understanding of how to interpret statistical data and assess risk and reward ratios, a/k/a cost vs. benefit equations.

Let’s look at some practical examples of this idea.

One thing many self-defense instructors and practitioners like to do is review view video footage of actual attacks. I do it all the time. There is much that can be learned. But there are also hidden dangers for the unwary (illiterate).

When you view a video of an attack, the odds of an impending attack occurring are 100%. You know it is going to happen. The title usually gives it away. (Example Title: Woman at ATM Viciously Robbed). Here I am using the example of a person being mugged at an ATM as the video clip.

Watching the video has the effect of creating a Cognitive Anchor of 100% attack odds. This has the effect of increasing your own assessment of the actual odds of being robbed at an ATM.

A Cognitive Anchor is when you attach to the first data point and use it to determine future assessments.

For example, I say the number “5”, and ask you to pick a random number. You say “10”. I say, “One billion”, you say, “One million”. In both cases, you could have picked ANY number, but you anchored to mine. My anchor influenced your “random” choice.

From Wikipedia (1): “Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions.”

“Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the “anchor”) and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information. These adjustments are usually insufficient, giving the initial anchor a great deal of influence over future assessments”.

When you watch a video of someone getting attacked at an ATM, you anchor to 100% probability of an attack. Therefore, you are likely to start believing that this type of attack is more frequent than it actually is. So what are the statistical odds of being attacked at an ATM in the United States? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000?

According the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, the odds of being attacked while doing an ATM transaction are greater than 1 in a million (2).

That means, on average, for every 30 second of video clip of an ATM attack, there are over eight thousand hours (350 days) of non-attack video. While the exact numbers differ, this same phenomena occurs for videos of kidnappings, elevator assaults, home invasions, police shootings, and much more.

It is not only self-defense aficionados that view these attack clips, anyone (the general public) who watches the news or listens to the radio, also effectively watches these clips too.

While this discussion may seem obvious to our conscious/rational/thinking brain, our unconscious/emotional brain isn’t good a math. It determines risk based on what it “sees” and “hears”. And it sees and hears about people getting attacked on a “regular” basis without any context for the true odds. This brain doesn’t take into consideration that attack video clips are edited content taken from a tremendous amount of raw content where nothing happens.

The average person bases their assessments of danger and problems in our society, not on actual facts, but on how they subconsciously “feel” about the issue. For example, an activist who LIKES a Facebook Page that highlights incidents of police use of force shootings, will see video clips of police shootings on a recurring basis on their News Feed. Before long, they be convinced that these events happen much more often than they actually do. They do happen. But what is important is the actual rate at which they happen, not the perceived (emotion based) rate.

How many of these activists will research actual statistical evidence to support their outraged claims of frequency? And of those that do, how many will have an understanding of how statistics and studies can be misleading, misinterpreted, and be used to outright lie?

An important part of Conflict Manager Literacy requires having a deeper understanding of how to interpret statistical risk. And also understanding how our unconscious minds influence our decision making processes, including assessments of Risk vs. Reward.

NOTES:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

2) http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_atms/print/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine an athletic, powerful, high ranking martial artist. Can this person defend him or herself? Most people would say “Yes! So and so is such a badass!”

Let’s reframe the question. Is this person street smart? The answer now should be “I have no idea”.

What does it mean to be street smart? The standard definition is a version of the following:

“Having the experience, knowledge, and ability necessary to deal with the potential difficulties or dangers of life in an urban environment.”

Let’s examine some other activities for comparison.

A street smart skateboarder knows how to safely maneuver his board through all types of city terrain. He can ride on a sidewalk without crashing into people. She can ride in the roadway without getting hit by cars. He knows how to avoid the large cracks and glide over the small ones. She knows which streets have dangerous blind spots and sharp turns, and which streets are manageable. All of this knowledge is relative to his or her own particular skill set and ability. One type of environment that is dangerous for one skateboarder may be safe for another and vice-versa.

And so it is with a smart rock climber, a smart mountain biker, a smart skier and more. Smartness refers to the person’s ability to stay within his or range of ability and deal with the inherent dangers in the environment. When you are smart, you know what you can do and what you can’t do with a high degree of accuracy. You know when to “go for it” and when to “back off”. You know your environment and yourself.

On the other hand, a dumb skateboarder/climber/biker/skier doesn’t know the limits of his or her capabilities. That is a major reason why they get injured or killed. They put themselves in situations and environments that exceed their current ability.

Dumb doesn’t mean inexperienced or unskilled. A person can be relatively inexperienced and have a beginning skill and still be smart, if he knows his limits and purposely stays within them.

When it comes to self-defense defense, a street smart person knows his or her personal capabilities relative to threatening and violent situations. He knows what action(s) will work for him, on who, in which type of situation. She knows what will not work for her, when and why. She knows when to engage and when to disengage.

Street smart people are able to accurately assess their abilities relative to the situations they encounter in urban environments. Street dumb people cannot and do not.

Getting back to the imaginary martial artist. He or she could just as easily be street smart as street dumb. We have no evidence either way. And if this person is street dumb, then can he really keep himself safe? Or is she likely to “fight” the wrong person, at the wrong time, in the wrong situation. Which means that he/she really can’t defend himself regardless of his/her “badassness”.

So how does this happen? How has technical martial arts ability become disassociated from street smartness? The answer lies in manner in which physical self-defense technique is taught and evaluated in a training setting. You are effectively judged on what you can perform without regard to what happens when your actions fail. Or if the actions you performed were excessive for the situation.

Learning your technique failure rate as a systemic issue is not a consideration in training. There is no method for determining and then improving upon your failure rate. You get points for trying and success, but lose no points for failure. Therefore, you never really learn the limits of your current ability. In real life, everything has a failure rate. All ropes have a breaking point. In fact, knowing the breaking point of a rope is a major consideration for determining which rope to use in which situation.

When you skateboard, rock climb, mountain bike and ski beyond your current ability, you fall. You get instant feedback that usually hurts and may cause injury. This consequence teaches you the line that that separates “go for it” and “back off”. These activities all involve constant feedback. In fact, a major aspect of these recreations is to engage in them in different environments under varying conditions. They are not done over and over in the same place. Variety is an integral part of the learning and play experience.

But this line is rarely drawn in martial arts and physical self-defense classes. The focus of these classes is to get people to learn how to do the “move” or technique “better”. And if you “know how to do it properly”, then it is assumed to work on everyone – all the time. The focus becomes on learning how to do it “right”. And once you can do it “right”, then you move on to the next technique. But you never determine your skill level’s breaking point and failure rate.

You check it off the list. You learn more and more techniques. You rise in rank and physical skill. On the surface, you really can perform the technique smoother and more effortlessly. But, the problem is that you don’t learn the situations in which you can’t reliably do it. The people you shouldn’t try the technique on and why not. You don’t know where the line of your ability lies. And you don’t know when what you would do is too little or too much for the situation. You don’t know when your actions will make the situation worse. You don’t know when to “go for it” or when to “back off”. Regardless of how much your skill level increases, you are still effectively street dumb because you are unable to accurately assess the urban environment and situation relative to your true ability.

Would this “Move” Work on the Street? – Erik Kondo

This innocent sounding question followed by a short video clip that highlights the “Move” in question is common in groups and forums related to self-defense and/or the martial arts. What follows usually a multitude of back and forth comments aimed at “proving” that the answer to the question is either YES, or NO.

BEWARE! The question is effectively a TRAP. It is a trick question designed to see who will take the bait and run with it. In fact, the more detailed explanation someone provides to “prove” his or her case, the more he shows he has been duped.

It seems like a simple YES, or NO question. But let’s deconstruct the question.

Would this Move work on the street for WHO against WHOM?

Using the MMA as an example there are 14 weight classes. Which means given two opponents, this question actually contains 91 different combinations based on weight class alone.

For the sake of discussion, each of the two people involved in the conflict have a different level of psychological motivation on a scale of 1 to 5 from low motivation to very high motivation. Similarly, each person has a different level of previous experience with dealing with these types of “Moves” from low experience to very high experience (1-5). And a different level of natural ability for accomplishing or defending against these “Moves” from low to very high (1-5).

That creates 91 x (2×5) x (2×5) x (2×5) = 91,000 variations to consider.

The Street represents the particular environment where this Move takes place. Streets vary in type of surface from hard dry pavement to soft wet and slippery. Sometimes, there are companions/friends on the Street who may become involved. There are improvised weapons on the Street such as bricks, rocks, bottles, sticks, sand, and more. Either party could bring weapons to the Street such as knives, guns, impact weapons, and more. The lighting is varies on different Streets. The weather is different. Clearly, there are many different types/varieties of “Streets” possible for each person. If we limit both people to a total of only 25 variations. We now have:

Would this Move work on a wide variety of Streets/Environments/Situations for WHO against WHOM?

91,000 x 25 = 2,275,000 possible variations of whether the Move works.

Now we have the question of what does “Works” actually mean? In some cases, “Works” could mean your opponent is dead, in other cases, you opponent is momentarily distracted. What is considered to “Work” is dependent on the desired outcome of the particular situation. Therefore, there could be easily be another 10 variations of what is deemed to “Work”.

2,275,000 x 10 = 22,750,000 possible variations.

If your answer is: YES, it works – You are saying that it works in all 22.75 million variations.

If your answer is: NO, it doesn’t work. – You are saying it doesn’t work in any of the 22.75 million variations.

Those people in forums and groups who tried to definitely answer this question without taking into consideration or acknowledging these many variations have been duped. And if those people don’t understand the question, should they really be answering it with such certainty?

NOTE: When calculating combinations and permutations the numbers get quite large and the formulas get tricky. In the event my math is off, the concept still applies. The concept is that there is a huge amount of variation involved in determining the viability of any particular “move”. So much so, that it is not possible to come to a definite determination of either “YES, it works” or “NO, it doesn’t”.

Are You Part of a Movement, Tribe, or Tribe that Has Gone Tribal? – Erik Kondo

What is a Movement? What is a Tribe? How can you tell if you are in a tribe or part of a movement?

There is nothing inherently wrong with being in a tribe. Human beings are naturally drawn to tribes. Most people are members of a wide variety of tribes. Your family is a tribe. Your place of employment is a tribe. Some of your hobbies and recreational interests are run by tribes.

The problem with tribes is that they have the potential to go “Tribal”. There are multiple definitions for going Tribal. Generally speaking, going Tribal means that the tribe is now ruled by emotional thinking. Allegiance to the ways of the tribe is now of primary importance. Tribal Tribes are ideological, not rational in their decision making and actions.

In many ways a movement is similar to a tribe. Just like a tribe, a movement can be run by an organization. A movement can have rules. These rules need to be communicated and respected. The rules describe the movement’s mission and what it stands for. For example, the goal of increasing recycling is a movement. There could be a central organization that provides guidance on the best practices for recycling. In this way, a movement can look like a tribe.

If you are someone who recycles, then you are part of the Recycling Movement. A movement could be a set of beliefs such as the believing in UFOs or alien life. Or a movement could be a method of parenting such as “free ranging” your kids.

What makes a movement different from a tribe is that the rules of a movement are actually unenforceable guidelines. Movements don’t enforce the rules of behavior. So once you stop recycling you are simply out of the movement. You many chose to recycle in a manner that is different than that recommended by the central organization. But you are still part of the movement. As long as your primary behavior is in keeping with the mission of the movement, you are by default part of the movement. A movement has Followers.

A tribe on the other hand, enforces it rules. Tribe members must follow the rules or face some type of consequences. These consequences could come from a formal organization or come from the members themselves. A tribe doesn’t always have a defined leadership. But tribe member behavior is still controlled. A tribe that has gone Tribal, is likely to use inappropriate means of enforcement. They are likely to use punishment and revenge that is driven by limbic/emotional thinking. A tribe has Members.

A vengeful mob is a temporary tribe that has gone Tribal. If the mob wants to beat someone, and you try to stop them, they are likely to turn on you. In fact, being a traitor in many Tribes warrants greater punishment than the same act committed by a non-member.

Tribes can go Tribal, movements can’t. Movement behavior is voluntary. You are part of the Non-smoking Movement until you start smoking. Once you start smoking, you are automatically out of the Movement. Whereas a Non-smoking Tribe would try to stop you from smoking for breaking the non-smoking rule. A Tribal non-smoking tribe may harshly punish you for simply talking about wanting to smoke. Tribal tribes have Believers.

I believe in gender equality which makes me part of the movement toward Equal Rights for Men and Women.

But I am neither a Men’s Rights Activist nor a Feminist. I consider both of them to be Tribes within the overall Movement. There are rules for acceptable behavior to be a member of these tribes. Enforcement is varied, but potent. There are sub-tribes within these two tribes that engage in Tribal behavior.

You can be in a tribe that is part of a movement which makes you both a tribe member and movement follower. For example, if you believe in self-defense you are part of the Movement of Self-Protection. This movement is made up of a wide variety of individuals and tribes. But some of these tribes have radically different views and beliefs on how self-defense is actually achieved. These tribes may war against each other as to what is the best form of self-defense. They may disagree on just about everything, but as long as they believe in the value of Self-Protection they are part of the movement.

Some of these tribes may be Tribal, others may not be. But if you don’t follow the rules of your tribe, there will be consequences.

In the 1800’s, there was a movement of individuals and tribes to settle the American West towards California. Now image that some of them have lost their way and started heading south towards Texas. Most likely, someone in these wayward Tribes would notice that the sun was no longer setting in front of them and notify the Tribes’ leaders. A tribe that has gone Tribal might ignore such information and punish the members for speaking up. Such a Tribe may try to convince its members that the sun actually sets in the North. Eventually, the Tribe members will come to believe that south is really west and that they are still part of the Movement.

When it comes to the Movement of Self-Protection are you a follower, or tribe member? If you are a tribe member, has your tribe gone Tribal making you a Believer?

You Are What You ATE, Part II – Erik Kondo

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

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

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

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

In terms of Teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Are What You ATE, Part I – Erik Kondo

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

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

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

Where,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II

The 12 Universal Elements of Conflict Management – Erik Kondo

“A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor” – English Proverb

It is likely that there will come a time when a skilled sailor is a thing of the past. Civilization will have developed to a point where the weather can be and will be controlled. There will be no storms, only calm seas. At such a time, there will be no need for skilled sailors.

There also may come a time when human conflict has been eradicated. No longer will there be disputes that arise from our human nature relating to safety, security, relationships, ideology, religion, culture, finance, politics, territorialism, anti-social personalities, biological drives, and more. The human desire to engage in conflict will be controlled in the same manner that the weather is controlled. Controlled for the common good. There will be no rape, murder, and mayhem. Humans will have domesticated themselves in the same manner that we have the created hairless dogs and giant pumpkins.

Gone too will be our individuality, diversity, and ability to determine our destiny. Just as there is no life without death, without the option of choosing Evil, we will not be able to choose Good. We will do as we have been predetermined to do.

But in the meantime…

We need to recognize that conflict is universal whether it relates to the violence of cosmic creation and destruction or to everyday interpersonal human conflict and confrontation. Those that have the ability to effectively manage conflict thrive. Those that don’t have these skills are relying on smooth seas to get by. Their demise is just a storm away.

Effective Conflict Management involves utilizing the 12 Universal Elements of Conflict Management:

Respect (Tolerance, Empathy, Consideration)
Clear Communication (Minimal misunderstandings, Directness)
Appropriate Enforcement (Just-Right for the situation)
Truth (Actuality, Reality)
Knowledge (Deep understanding)
Dynamic Problem Solving (Critical Thinking, Neo-cortex utilized, Situation specific analysis)
Evolution (Constantly evolving and changing, Double Loop Learning)
Continuum of Responses (Spectrum, Scaling, Progressive/escalating use of force)
Control of Emotions (Limbic system controlled)
Trade-offs (Cost/Benefit analysis, Give/take, Negotiation, Compromise, Cooperation)
Open-minded (Responsive to feedback, Open to differing viewpoints)
Accountability (Responsibility, Agency, Acceptance)

On the other hand, ineffective Conflict Management involves engaging in these Universal Elements of Conflict Mis-management:

Dis-respect (Intolerance, Prejudice, Othering, Labeling, Name-calling)
Ineffective Communication (Mis-understandings, Indirectness, Assumptions)
Inappropriate Enforcement (Under-Enforcement, Over-Enforcement)
Untruths (Inaccurate facts, Wrong data, Mis-leading statistics)
Lack of Understanding (Ignorance, Misconceptions)
Static Answers (Predetermined responses, Generalizations)
Unchanging (Resistance to change and new ideas, Ideology)
Singular Response (One Size Fits All, Non-scaling)
Controlled by Emotions (Emotional Thinking, Limbic system in control,
Fearfulness, Anger, Envy)
One-sided (Blaming, Accusations, Unyielding, Non-negotiable position,
Uncompromising, Competing)
Closed-minded (Non-responsive to feedback, Non-receptive to differing
viewpoints)
Non-accountability (Denial of responsibility, Non-agency, Avoidance)

Effective Conflict Management is measured not only by the result. A great Conflict Manager may still achieve an unwanted result just as a great athlete or team may still lose an athletic contest. Conversely, an ineffective Conflict Manager may achieve a desired outcome in the same way that “a broken clock is correct twice a day”.

Over a period of time, consistently using the 12 Universal Elements of Conflict Management when involved in interpersonal conflict will lead to more desirable results. Many times, effective Conflict Managers resolve the situation before it becomes an actual conflict. Therefore, their skills can easily go unnoticed and unappreciated.

On the other hand, once you are aware of the Elements of Mis-management, Conflict Mis-managers are easy to spot. In their effort to manipulate the world to their benefit, they employ the Elements on a massive scale. The next time you read a blog or article advocating for social change, check to see which type of person you are dealing with.

Why “Textbook” Bystander Intervention Training Can Get You Beaten and Killed – Clint Overland and Erik Kondo

I recently came across a news story about a male college student in Iowa intervening when he perceived a group of men were sexually harassing a woman. Consequently, the man ended up in the hospital with multiple injuries when the group of men attacked him. According to an interviewed “expert” on Bystander Intervention training, the young man had acted in “textbook” fashion. He had done everything right.

Read or listen to the full story here:
http://iowapublicradio.org/post/isu-student-severely-injured-after-intervening-street-harassment

While I applaud this man for his courage and willingness to step up to help a woman in distress, in my opinion, the man actually engaged in conflict mis-mangement. In order to bring more knowledge to this issue, I turned to a true expert in the field of conflict management. One who deals regularly with drunk, belligerent, dangerous men and women on a nightly basis – Clint Overland.

Erik: “Regarding the incident as outlined in the news story, what is your interpretation of what happened?”

Clint: “As I read the news accounts and watched the videos from the news, the Victim seemed to want to do the right thing and stop the harassment of a young woman by a group of 8 or 9 men. But, he didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing, and who knows if it wasn’t a setup ambush. I have seen things like this occur in bars over and over again played out with different scenarios. Ambushes like this work because they play on peoples need to do the right thing.”

Erik: “In your opinion what did the victim do wrong?”

Clint: “First of all, let’s start with the Victims size – tall and lanky. He probably hasn’t been in many altercations of extreme violence. His size has always been a factor used for intimidation. He has backed people down in the past because he was taller and possibly stronger than a lot of individuals.

Now, he interfered in a Group Monkey Dance with an unknown tribe of primates. I do not know or can’t say that he shouldn’t have stepped in, but there are damn sure smarter ways to do it. Also he trusted that the attackers would do the right thing according to His own (the Victims) socioeconomic back ground and raising. He used the wrong script for the right reasons. Maybe he has been in a past situation similar to the one that got him beat and the previous script worked. This is a different group with different unknowns.”

Erik: “Specifically, what else could he have done?”

Clint: “The Victim should have called the police immediately. 911 is your friend in these situations. He could have saved himself an ass whipping by calling the cops, speaking clearly and point out what was going on. Give all the info he had at the time and the numbers of individuals involved. He needed to start yelling at the top of his lungs while the police were on the line, “I HAVE CALLED THE POLICE AND THEY ARE ON THEIR WAY”. Then he needed to start hollering for help from other individuals. He could have also enlisted the help of any friends at hand or any store owners close by to call the police. There is safety in numbers when it comes to dealing with predators. The more there are of you, the safer you become.”

Erik: “How would you have handled the situation given the circumstances?”

Clint: “This is a hard question because I really don’t know all of the information. I have been in a few similar situations. One involved a group of frat rats and a girl who had passed out drunk at the bar. They wanted to take her and fuck her. I said, “No, they needed to leave”. Their response was that “there is one of you and 12 of us, so how you going to stop us?” I told them, “I would kill as many as I could before I went down”.

They didn’t want to play in that game. Also, I carry several guns, and other “things” most of the time, and I practice with them regularly. I am not afraid to use them. I also do understand the cost that using force can incur. I have a good lawyer, a bail bondsman, and several intimidating friends. I damn sure would not have walked in the midst of them trying to reason with them. That is being a lamb walking into its own slaughter. Much too many variables to understand and watch at one time. If at all possible, I would have called the police, and called out for help. If that didn’t work, shoot the first few.”

Erik: “Regarding the interview with Mentors in Violence, what is your opinion of the advice being given on Bystander Intervention for these types of situations?”

Clint: “These egghead feel good fellows are going to get someone seriously hurt or killed. They are trying to teach people how to cook a meal when changing the tire is what is required. Wrong tools and wrong skills for the job. Violence is neither good nor bad. It is simply a tool, same as a gun or a knife. It has a specific use and it is the individual’s use of it that sets the theme.

A guy robbing a bank uses a gun to kill one of the customers is then shot and killed by another customer or police officer. Same tools, same results, different reasons. The information given in the interview is good IF and only If it is used in the correct settings. It will not work for every situation or scenarios. Different rules for different settings. Trying that upper class social pressure on certain groups of people will get your ass stomped flat like this kid found out. In my opinion, and again I am no doctor or scientist, just a beat up middle aged bouncer. The info that is being passes around as a godsend by these folks is pure bullshit. It won’t work in every situation and shouldn’t be taught that it will work.”

Erik: “What do you think is harmful about the advice?”

Clint: “Look guys, violence isn’t always the answer, but it damn sure needs to be included in the possible outcome. Don’t get all butt hurt when someone refuse to listen to reason. 90% of my job as a bouncer is listening to people and reading situations. People skills are an asset in any situation. Sympathy, logic and reason can be a great stabilizing force, but so is a framing hammer or a shotgun. These eggheads are trying to get people to be NON violent. Our very nature as human beings is violent. Civilization and all of its blessings are based upon the idea of law and order. How it is impressed on people is through the threat of violence in some form or fashion. Whether it is the police and legal system, or a military force. What we need to be focusing on is the idea that violence is just a tool. We need to all become skilled in the use of that tool.

People are more afraid of making my wife mad than they are of pissing me off. Why? Because she is a calming influence on me. But they understand that if they offend or hurt her in any way, all she has to say is that it’s OK for me to follow my baser instincts. Which can include an old tire, a can of gasoline, and a lighter, if the situation needs it.

I am not afraid to say that we need to quit teaching women to be weaker, and teach them to be meaner and more dangerous. My daughter was accosted by a patron in a bar where she was working. She straight told the guy that “she would cut him from his balls to his brisket if he said one more word” and she meant it. Then, she told her regular customers. They expressed their anger outside, away from cameras. Violence was used and situation was solved.

Erik: “. How would you advise people differently?

Clint: “Folks, I am not, and never will be a proponent of VIOLENCE as the only answer that works. It’s not. Life is made up of skills and tools. Whether it is cooking a frittata or baking a cake, both take place in the kitchen, but use different methods and skills to do it correctly. You wouldn’t try and scramble the eggs with a tire iron, or cut the cake with a pistol. All tools and all skills have their place. To be a complete and rounded person, you need to have as many tools and skill available as possible. I tell my kids it’s great to have a big tool box with everything you need put away in its correct place and available to use.

Erik: “Anything else you would like to say?”

Clint: “There is, and always will be, a need to talk and negotiate with other people. But there will, and always will be, a need for the correct application of violence. I see too many people, who think that because they grew up, or become accustom to the way things are in their realm, that it is the same in every other place. Doesn’t work that way. Each social and economic class, and subclass, has its own rules and own way of doing things. When you step outside the class that you are comfortable with, you find yourself playing a game where you do not know all the rules. Here is where your tool box comes in very handy.”

—————————————

When it comes to conflict management, there are number of considerations to keep in mind. When you, as an outsider to a Group, use certain words to “command” a Group, such as “Chill out”, it is likely that the Group will backlash against your command. This is particularly so, if the Group consists of young men from another tribe, late at night, in the presence of a female(s), alcohol has been consumed, and you have no backup.

Were the men wrong to harass the woman and attack the man? Yes, absolutely, they were to blame. But being blameless doesn’t make your injuries heal any faster. Being blameless, doesn’t bring you back from the dead. Being blameless, doesn’t help you handle situations differently in the future. Shaking hands with someone is not a de-escalation strategy if his plan is to suck you into an ambush.

If you intervene in a situation of harassment with the goal of teaching a social lesson about the importance of respect, you must understand that you subject yourself to being the recipient of a different social lesson. This lesson runs along the lines of “mind your own business”, and “don’t interfere with our Group affairs”. Therefore, as Clint mentioned, it is important to understand the dynamics of the situation. What are the rules that the Group lives by? What happens if you break their rules? Are you subjecting yourself to an Educational Beatdown combined with a Group Monkey Dance?

Safely teaching a social lesson requires that you to be backed up by some authority. Why else would the other party listen to your lesson when it directly interferes with what he or she wants to do? For a variety of reasons, intervening as one college boy to another is vastly different than intervening as a college boy to a group of “country” men.

Bystander Intervention training that does not include education on how violence is used and violence dynamics can easily morph into the teaching of conflict mis-management. It has the very real potential of leading to situations that end badly.