Tag: Guest Article

Moral Perspectives on Violence – James Hall

“You weren’t there man, you don’t know!”

A key consideration in reality-based self-protection is ensuring that any action we may take in protecting ourselves or others is both lawful and ethical. Others have written extensively on these points, so I won’t discuss them in detail here. A further factor which is less well covered by the existing literature is the moral aspect of the use of force, encompassing not only how other people may perceive our actions as being morally justifiable, but also how people may judge and come to terms with their own force decisions and their consequences.

As martial artists and self-protection practitioners, we have all made the decision (consciously or unconsciously) that there are circumstances in which the use of violence is legitimate, both legally and ethically. Wider society, however, often takes a different view. Politics and the media consistently put forward the message that violence is never acceptable, even that it is evil. We may come up against this clash of moral perspectives, particularly after an incident in which we may have harmed another person in self-defence. For example, we may believe that our actions were perfectly justified in the circumstances but find that family and friends are not supportive, or we may look back on our own actions and wonder whether we actually did the right thing at the time. People who have never had any self-protection training yet successfully use violence to protect themselves may have trouble coming to terms with their own actions, and we may become involved (professionally or informally) in helping someone resolve conflicting feelings about the morality of their own actions.

How an action is judged as “right” or “wrong” – morally acceptable or unacceptable – is shaped by many different influences, including cultural norms, religious teachings, philosophies and so on. This article explores some basic psychological perspectives on morality, and offers some suggestions on how an understanding of moral psychology can help in situations such as those described above.

One of the most influential researchers in moral psychology is Laurence Kohlberg. While teaching and researching at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, and later in the 1970s and ‘80s at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Kohlberg investigated how moral sensibilities develop in people from childhood through to adulthood. He identified six stages of moral development, which occur in order as a person matures:

  1. Obedience & punishment: The rules of right and wrong are set by other people who are in a position of power (usually the child’s parents); behaviour is “wrong” if it leads to punishment. This stage occurs in early childhood when the child is only aware of his/her own immediate needs.
  2. Individualism & exchange: There is more than one view of what is right and wrong; what’s “right” is what satisfies the needs of the self and of others. This stage occurs in later childhood as the child develops a sense of empathy and begins to test boundaries.
  3. Interpersonal conformity: The person’s social group determines what is “right” and “wrong”. “Right” behaviour is rewarded with social approval, “wrong” behaviour is punished by losing status, being ostracised by the group, or by other forms of social punishment. This stage occurs around the early teenage years, when children are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure.
  4. Law and order: The person understands and accepts that a common set of rules binds society and ensures social order, and has an appreciation for the importance of upholding the law. This stage occurs in later teenage years as the individual matures into an independent adult.
  5. Social contract and individual rights: The person questions the law, realising that laws are not always just and can sometimes work against the interests of individuals. The person develops a sense that the right to life is superior to any law created by society.
  6. Universal ethical principles: The person develops their own, fully formed, individual view of what is right and wrong, based on their own beliefs and values. This view may or may not be shared by others, and may or may not overlap with the law. An example of a person operating at this level would be an activist who breaks the law in pursuit of their view of social justice.

A crucial finding of Kohlberg’s work is that only about 10-15% of the adult population reach levels 5 or 6 of this model, because these levels require an uncommon degree of abstract thinking. The obvious implication for self-protection is that if we need to explain our actions after a violent encounter, there is an 85-90% chance that the person to whom we are talking will be bound up in judgements of the social acceptability and lawfulness of our actions, and is therefore likely to judge any actions on our part which go against social norms and/or the normal standards of lawful conduct as being morally wrong (or at least morally questionable), even if such actions were necessary to preserve life or safety. This suggests that we are more likely to gain the moral support of the person to whom we are explaining our actions if our explanation appeals to their sense of social acceptability and lawfulness, rather than any over-riding considerations of protecting life and safety.

A second influential perspective on morality was put forward by Carol Gilligan, also of UCLA, in the 1970s after Kohlberg’s work was first published. Gilligan felt that Kohlberg’s work was biased towards a male view of morality, and that women’s moral reasoning was different. Gilligan developed a different model describing three levels of moral reasoning. As in Kohlberg’s model, the levels reflect increasing capability for abstract thinking.

  1. Survival: Whatever I need to do to survive is morally right.
  2. Self-sacrifice: Whatever minimises harm to others is morally right, even if that means I am harmed in the process
  3. Universal harm reduction: Whatever minimises harm to others and to myself is morally right (i.e. I don’t want others to be harmed, but I have a right to not be harmed too).

In contrast to Kohlberg’s model, which emphasises how a person develops a sense of the “rules” of moral conduct, Gilligan’s model focusses much more on how individuals make personal judgements of what is right and wrong based on assessments of harm. Gilligan believed that men’s moral reasoning is bound by adherence to rules, whereas women’s is more flexible and personal according to the demands of the situation.

Both Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s models have attracted extensive criticism and controversy, which is too extensive to discuss here. However, there is another important point to be drawn from them which is highly relevant to self-protection.

Kohlberg and Gilligan used very different methodologies in developing their models. Kohlberg presented the participants in his studies with short descriptions of fictional scenarios (“vignettes”) in which a character is presented with a moral dilemma and takes a particular course of action. The participants were then asked to judge whether the character’s actions were morally right or not, and explain the reasoning behind their decision. Gilligan interviewed pregnant women who were facing the decision whether or not to terminate their pregnancy. Kohlberg’s participants were making reflective judgements about a fictional person’s actions, with plenty of time to think about it, and with no personal stake in the consequences for themselves.

Gilligan’s participants were making real judgements about their own actions, under time pressure, with potentially deep and life-long consequences for themselves. This suggests that the differences between the models of moral reasoning may be due to the differences in the circumstances in which the judgement is being made, rather than differences in gender. Like Gilligan’s participants, a person who has used force in self-defence will have made a judgement under pressure, probably acting on instinct or unconscious thought, in a situation with possibly life-threatening or life-altering consequences, and acted on that judgement, whereas the person assessing their actions after the fact will be making a judgement more like those of Kohlberg’s participants – with the benefit of conscious analysis, hindsight and time to reflect, and with no personal stake in the outcome.

This crucial difference between the moral perspectives of a person who has taken action and a person assessing that action after the fact has implications for articulation strategy, and for resolving moral conflicts following the use of force. The person who has acted may judge their own actions in a way which reflects Gilligan’s model – based on survival and minimisation of harm – whereas the person assessing the actions after the fact may make their judgements more according to Kohlberg’s model, likely to be bound up in social convention and the letter of the law.

Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s models attempt to describe how people make moral judgements in the general sense. Other research has focussed on how people make moral judgements specifically about the use of violence. Again, in the early 1970s, Seymour Feshbach, also of UCLA, found that although people generally consider violence to be morally wrong, the strength of that belief varies according to the purpose for which violence is used. Participants in Feshbach’s studies felt that violence was more morally acceptable if it was used for a legitimate purpose – for example, police shooting dead an armed offender who presents an immediate danger to the public was felt to be more morally acceptable than a parent slapping a child to correct their behaviour. Several studies have explored this further, including a study by Craig Anderson and colleagues of Iowa State University in the mid-2000s.

Anderson’s study used a questionnaire to measure participants’ moral approval or disapproval of four types of violence, namely warfare, penal code violence (i.e. violence used in the course of apprehending, managing and punishing criminals), corporal punishment of children, and domestic violence. The study found that all four types of violence were judged to be morally unacceptable, but there was a large difference in the degree of unacceptability between the types of violence. Corporal punishment of children and intimate partner violence were judged to be extremely morally unacceptable, attitudes towards warfare were disapproving but to a much lesser extent, and attitudes towards penal code violence were only just disapproving – almost neutral. This suggests that, although many people will say that they disapprove of all kinds of violence, people have an underlying sense that violence is more morally acceptable (or less morally unacceptable) if it is used against people who “deserve it” – e.g. the enemy in war, or people who have already committed criminal acts – and much less morally acceptable if it is used against the innocent, or people who can’t defend themselves.

The relevance of this to self-protection is that, when explaining our actions after an encounter, the person listening is likely to hold a disapproving moral view of violence in the general sense, but is likely to disapprove of our actions less if we can give them evidence of the criminal nature of the actions or intentions of the person who created the threat. Similarly, a person attempting to come to terms with their own actions following a violent encounter may be struggling with their own moral disapproval of violence in the general sense, so directing their attention to the criminal nature of the actions or intentions of the person who created the threat may help them to feel less moral disapproval of their own actions.

In summary, the implications of the research described above suggest that, when practising articulation after the event (e.g. in scenario training) with the intention of obtaining the support of the person listening at a moral level, we need to consider the following points:

  • Our perspective on the morality of our actions will be shaped by the demands of the situation and the necessity of taking action in order to prevent harm to ourselves and others; the perspective of the person listening will be shaped by reflective judgements, with the benefit of hindsight, and with no personal stake in the consequences of the decision.
  • The moral reasoning of the person listening is likely to be bound up in social convention and lawfulness, therefore demonstrating the lawfulness of our actions is important from a moral as well as legal perspective.
  • The person listening is likely to morally disapprove of violence in general, but may disapprove of our actions less if we can demonstrate the criminality of the actions or intentions of the person against whom we have used violence.

This is a lot to remember under the pressure of a real-life situation, so it is of course important to emphasise articulation / debriefing in scenario training in order to develop the necessary experience.

Understanding the difference between moral perspectives from within the situation at the time and outside the situation after the event can also be helpful to anyone involved in counselling (professionally or informally) survivors of violence, or resolving the psychological aftermath of an encounter in which they themselves have been involved. In these situations, it is important to emphasise that:

  • how a situation appears in hindsight is very different from how it was at the time;
  • the criminal actions or intentions of the person who created the situation mean that violence is more morally justified (or less morally unjustified);
  • the right to life and protection from harm over-ride perspectives on morality which are bound up in lawfulness and social convention.

In a liberal society in which many perspectives on what is right and wrong co-exist, talking about morality can often be awkward. It is much easier to focus on whether any actions we may take in defence of ourselves or others are lawful, since the law is unambiguous. Ensuring our actions are lawful might keep us out of jail, but whether we can rest with a clear conscience and retain the support of loved ones and our wider community depends on how we and others perceive the morality of our actions. Developing an understanding of the psychological basis of moral sense in ourselves and others, the difference in moral perspectives from within and outside a situation, and the dynamics of moral views of violence should help to give us the best possible chance of doing that.

References

Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., Wood, P. K., & Bonacci, A. M. (2006). Development and testing of the Velicer Attitudes Toward Violence Scale: Evidence for a Four-Factor Model. Aggressive Behaviour, 32(2), 122–136. doi:10.1002/ab.20112

Feshbach, S. (1971). Dynamics and morality of violence and aggression: some psychological considerations. The American Psychologist, 26(3), 281–292. doi:10.1037/h0031219

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of child development research, 1, pp.381-431

About the Author

James Hall is an instructor in applied Karate with Genjitsu Karate Kai (http://www.genjitsu.co.uk), is ranked 4th Dan (Karate) with the British Combat Association and holds Foundation level certification in Iain Abernethy Bunkai-Jutsu. James also holds a Graduate Diploma in Psychology from Aston University, UK. James can be contacted via e-mail at hall.jp@gmail.com or via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/james.hall.902819

Copyright notice

This article is copyright James Hall, 2016. This article may be shared and re-printed without explicit permission for non-commercial use only. Please contact the author for any enquiries regarding commercial publication.

 

How the 20-60-20 Theory Can Improve Public Perception – Patrick Van Horne

Public perception of and support for law enforcement is a “point in time” statistic. It isn’t fixed or written in stone. It is something that can be influenced and improved or it can deteriorate and decline, but it isn’t permanent. I know how frustrating it can be for many of the 1.2 million law enforcement officers in America (1) to be judged because of the actions of a few people. It was no different for 1.4 million members of the military who were judged because of what eleven soldiers did at Abu Ghraib. While national news outlets have been effective at shaping the current negative perception of police officers, that image does not have to endure. In the wake of the Baltimore riots this past April, allow me to provide an approach and a method to police officers who want to rebuild trust and support in the communities they patrol and overcome the negative narrative.

The 20-60-20 Theory is a framework that I recommend law enforcement officers consider when seeking to earn the trust of the neighborhoods they work in. The 20-60-20 Theory helps to define things that you can control and should in turn focus on, as well as the things that you can’t control and shouldn’t spend time dealing with. The 20-60-20 Theory is built off the Pareto Principle, which is often discussed as the “80-20 Rule,” which says that, for many events, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. If you were to apply the 80-20 Rule to business, it would say that 80% of a company’s revenue comes from 20% of their customers. Another example is that 20% of a company’s employees cause 80% of their problems. If you apply a standard distribution to the 80-20 Rule, you would create a bell curve with an equal 20% of the population on each end of the spectrum and a remaining 60% of the population in the middle, as shown in the diagram.

From Theory To Policing

When you apply the 20-60-20 Theory to law enforcement, this principle shows that there is going to be 20% of the population that is never going to support police officers. There is simply nothing that you can do to influence this group or sway them. For this negative 20 percent of the population, there is a corresponding 20 percent of the population that is going to show unwavering support and adoration for police officers and their mission. There is quite literally nothing that you can do to cause this group to stop supporting our nation’s law enforcement officers. These two groups on the extreme ends of the spectrum are often easy to identify because they display their emotional responses to each and every news story that is released and refuse to even consider opinions contradictory to their own. These two groups also represent the 40% of the population that we do not want to spend any time with because they aren’t evaluating situations rationally or logically, and we will never be able to change their opinion. By identifying this 40% of the population that we will not be able to influence in either direction, we are also able to identify the 60% of the population that we do want to focus our efforts on.

The remaining 60 percent of the population in the middle of the spectrum represents the group of people who have yet to make up their minds about whether to support or protest law enforcement. While recent events, such as national news coverage after the Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner incidents, might have caused the 60% to lean in one direction or the other, their views and opinions are not fixed and they are constantly looking for new information to help shape their opinions. Earning or losing the support of this informed and well-rounded 60% is essential because they are the majority. As the 60% has the ability to tip the scales significantly in either direction, police supporters need to be campaigning for the 60%’s support, and they have to do it while police critics are also attempting to influence the 60% with their anti-police narrative. The decision to focus on the undecided 60% of the population isn’t just theory, but has also proven to be effective in recent history.

During an extremely violent period of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007, local leaders throughout Iraq’s Al Anbar Province decided that supporting Al Qaeda instead of the U.S. Marines and Soldiers in the cities was no longer in their best interest. At the time, Marines were actively searching for and fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq (the negative 20% of the population) in cities like Ramadi, Haditha and Fallujah, while building a local police force from the supportive 20% of the population. Progress in Al Anbar was slow, however, because the middle 60% of the population were still supporting Al Qaeda. As the 60% of the population began to see the consequences of living in an Al Qaeda-controlled city and saw what their version of Sharia law entailed, their opinions changed, and the Al Anbar Awakening began.(2)

When the local religious leaders started recommending that the men from their followings join the Iraqi Police, recruitment numbers exploded. As the local population turned on the negative 20%, Al Qadea operatives in Iraq were run out of the cities. There are numerous similarities between the Anbar Awakening and the current situation for police officers here in the United States. Admittedly, a significant portion of a police officer’s job requires that you spend time focusing on and trying to prevent the negative 20% of the population from committing crimes, but focusing only on this group forces officers into a reactionary mindset. Spending time to earn the trust and support of the open-minded 60% of the population can help police officers get ahead of the curve. This doesn’t require an elaborate plan, just some basic human skills of showing respect, learning the names of the people in the community (not just the criminals,) helping people out where you can and demonstrating that you actually care.

The 60% of the population you want to influence isn’t going to be swayed or influenced by words, but are going to be looking at your actions to determine how serious you are about building and earning trust. While the steps to actually develop a relationship aren’t anything new for police officers, we hope that by defining the target of your efforts (the 60%,) we can help to make your time spent in this pursuit more effective. The time to begin engaging with the neighborhood isn’t when an incident has just occurred because it is hard to build trust in high stakes situations. By talking with the middle 60% of the population and shaping their perception during low risk times, you will be able to make the steady and systematic gains to counter the negative narrative.

Patrick Van Horne is a Co-Founder and CEO of The CP Journal, a former Marine Corps infantry officer and the co-author of “Left of Bang: How the Marine Corps’ Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life.” Follow Patrick on twitter at @PatrickVanHorne

(1) Numbers based on 2008 data provided by Department of Justice http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf

(2) You can read a well-documented report by the Institute for the Study of War on the conditions leading to the Al Anbar Awakening and the results, here.
www.understandingwar.org/report/anbar-awakening-displacing-al-qaeda-its-stronghold-western-iraq OORD3;

This article was first published in the in “ITOA News: The Journal Of The Illinois Tactical Officers Association we would like to thank Patrick for his kind permission to publish it in Conflict Manager Magazine.

 

Biomechanics of Power, Part II – Jari Peuhkurinen

PART TWO

Energy/Power Potential

Power potential is a term that I use to clarify importance of proper body biomechanics in training. Power potential is always present, no matter what the position of our body is, or the situation we are in. It is simply the capacity what we have (not yet produced), in that moment to produce momentum or muscle force and direct it to our opponent. Think of it as stored energy we have in our body, cause of our body´s positioning, ready to be delivered. We should train to maintain proper structure of our body in relation to our opponent’s body, so that in every situation we have the maximum power potential in our use.

Do not confuse this with the physics term potential energy, which is energy that accumulates in our body when we have the possibility to drop our body weight.

We don’t always have the distance required to produce a lot of momentum. As you remember, momentum is a product of mass and its velocity. What happens when we do not have the distance to produce a lot of velocity, but we have the possibility to produce movement? I have separated three different situations:

  1. There is no distance between your tool and the target, you are already in contact and the starting velocity is zero. You cannot produce momentum, but you can produce muscle force. So this is the situation where you use what you have in your muscles. For an example, a pushing movement with your hands to create distance between your bodies.
  2. There is short distance between the tool and the target. For example, in clinching position, you don’t have the room for maximum momentum, so it requires force; acceleration of the mass. Think about Bruce Lee´s 10-inch punch.
  3. You have the distance to produce momentum and you always try to maximize your body movement.

All these three positions need to be practiced. Be well versed in different distances so you can maintain the maximum power potential in all situations.

Balance is crucial if we want to produce and direct momentum. There can be no effective movement with direction if there is no balance. There can be no controlled movement without balance. So if there is not balanced structure, there is no power potential.

Definition for power potential could be something like this: balanced position, from where we have potential to use our muscle force to produce controlled, explosive linear or angular movement and direct it as needed.

Delivery Potential

(Power) Delivery Potential is another term of mine and it describes the variety in quantity of power potential. We always aim to have to have the maximum potential in our use in any particular position and situation, but we also need to understand that there is always loss of force during the movement. We should train to be better at delivering the whole potential and lose less in the delivery. So if we have power potential of 100 units, the maximum what we can have, there will always be less than that 100 units delivered to the opponent. There are several components that effect on the delivery:

Distance is an element in the equation of our technique and its effect. To put it simply. If you are too far away from the target you need to reach. That affects your structure and balance and it has direct effect on your delivery. If the distance is too short, you don´t have distance to build maximum momentum. Proper delivery movement has to choose based on distance.

Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of solid surfaces. If there is no friction, the power potential will have little or no effect on the target since most of the power potential will be lost from the ground to opposite direction. This is the reason why hockey players grab the opponent when they hit during a fight. This clarifies the importance of proper structure also. Friction force will work for us, when we deliver momentum.

Structure is composed of bones, joints, articular cartilage, ligaments, tendons, muscles and that kind of tissue that keeps internal organs at their place. This is our engine and vehicle that produces and delivers the energy to our opponent during altercation. Structure needs to be without a weak links, for us to optimize its energy production and delivery. Most common examples of poor structure you can see when people hit something and their joints give in and bend during impulse. That is force leaking from the delivery. Remember that according to Newtons III law every force has an equal and opposite force acting on the objects. That bent wrist during impulse is the Newtons law in action. Contact with the opponent produces the opposite force acting on our structure.  

Pressure (p) is multi versed term in martial arts and can be used to describe for example the psychological pressure you need to create for your opponent. In here it is a physics term that measures the force applied perpendicular to the surface of an object per unit area over which that force is distributed. Pressure is measured in Pascals. Again to put it simply, we want to deliver and focus our power potential into small area to gain more pressure to the target and create more penetration. Think if could focus the power of our low roundhouse kick to a surface in size of a pin? It would have more penetrating power than a boot tip. The idea of pressure is the same as in impulse. Think about a bullet shot towards you, if you could divide the pressure bullet creates to your whole body area, you would hardly feel it, but because the momentum of that bullet is concentrated to a small area, it has a huge penetrating capacity.

But again there are situations where we want the momentum to effect on larger surface, for example to create more stopping movement.  

Angle in which the momentum is deliver to the target is also of consequence. As mentioned in the pressure is force applied perpendicular to the surface. So we look for 90-degree angle of delivering the momentum. Anything other than that and part of the force is redirected from the target and has no effect.

Effect Potential

Effect Potential is the last part of the movement. Maximum effect potential is ideal result that we look for in any movement we make. It is the proper delivery and directing of power potential that enables the maximum effect. From physical point of view, following two components create the maximum effect in our opponent, if the power potential and delivery are in order:

Tool and Target are important factors of effect. You need to deliver momentum with proper tool and choose the right target for that tool. To put it plainly, do not hit opponents kneecap with your fist. Even when you have the momentum and delivery potential, the effect will most likely be not in its maximum. However, if you change the tool, for example to tip of a boot, the effect will probably be closer to maximum what we could hope for.

These two components of effect potential could have been included in the earlier sections too, since all of the other components that result in the overall effect our movement has, is dependent on the opponent’s psychology and physiology.  Basically there are only six desired effects we can hope to achieve with our action:

  1. Pain in order to make opponent give up and comply
  2. Make him out of balance to better our position
  3. Cause unconsciousness (striking)
  4. Disrupt the flow of blood to the brain (strangle)
  5. Disrupt the flow of air to the lungs. (choking)
  6. Stop the heart from beating.

If you really think the whole concept on potential (power-delivery-effect) you can understand why the laws of physics, mechanics, biomechanics and kinesiology are not completely straight forward when talking about self-defense and martial arts and they need to be applied. Of course if we only want to measure how much force or momentum we have in our straight punch, we can use the biomechanical basics to better our movement that way, but for actual self-defense situation it holds almost no meaning, since the effect is only thing that matter, and that cannot be measured effectively.

What we can learn from these concepts is how to make our action and our training better. What to look for in the training.

 

A Little on Unconscious Survival Signals & Body Language: Past and Present – Darren Friesen

This excerpt is taken from a body language presentation I had developed some time ago. As with all body language, it is circumstantial, contextual and person-specific. For any of you interested in a purely knowledge-based context, or for those whose lives may depend on profiling, reading or understanding other people’s aggression, I hope this helps in some way.

So much of our body language is through our original protection system developed evolutionarily. Adrenaline dump, fear, flight/fight/fright or freeze, protecting organs and vitals, mobility/respiration/vision flinch response that transfers to regular daily body language, so much of our history is from survival signals/instincts from thousands of years of highly-evolved development.

Usually tells are derived from one of the three evolutionary fear responses:

FRIGHT/FREEZE (a neglected and sometimes utterly ignored element of the three, lip service is often only paid to the “fight or flight” axiom)-temporary motion stop, minimal bodily movement, momentary silence, making ourselves smaller, guilt responses, responses when placed back toward an open door/moving people/open window.

FLIGHT-shift feet toward exit, turn away from someone you don’t like, avoid conversations that threaten you, blocking behavior (closing the eyes, rubbing the eyes, placing hands in front of face, leaning away, placing objects on lap (purse) or in front of you, overall “distancing” (barriers, spatial creation, angling, body blading)

FIGHT-argument, insults, personal attacks instead of attacking the problem, counter-allegations, denigration of professional stature, defensiveness, goading, sarcasm; posture, eyes, puffing out chest, spatial violations, aggressive non-physical contact (ritual signs of violence, pacing, emphatic gestures, voice changes in tone), monotone response with minimal bodily gestures/motionless

One thing I always do if I’m somewhat uncertain about a certain non-verbal signal is to do it myself (tactfully of course so as not to mimic, an often clearly-perceived insult) and see how I feel or, more accurately, how it makes me feel.

CONTRADICTIONS

From our evolution and violent past, we often show remnants of body language that had direct purpose to survival but, as evolution always does, times have moved on and different survival systems have developed. These are, debatedly, somewhat scenario-specific:

  • Ventral showing: showing lack of fear by showing organs and sending message of other being non-threatening to person showing. Often in modern violence this show of perceived arrogance and show of vulnerable parts of the body have proven dangerous against an underhanded modern criminal (especially one with a knife) Option? Blading the body. One can still show confidence and status with an open body posture slightly angled in discussion/confrontation
  • Crotch display: showing confidence, machismo and competition to other men and physical interest in a woman; one needs to be careful in a confrontation when opening legs too far apart and not paying attention to potential genital-related outcomes (including voice permanently Mickey Moused with a higher pitch) Option? Once again, slight blading/angling of the body can still get the message across without being blindly confident and displaying a message of arrogance
  • Neck show: to show vulnerability and submission, potential attraction from the opposite sex, see number one (contains lots of vital areas vulnerable to attack as well: Vagus nerve, carotid arteries, jugular veins, suprasternal notch as well as the superior and middle thyroid veins, big muscle on the neck) Option? Slight angling of the head away to keep the vitals partially shielded while still showing polite deference and interest
  • Roots of the eyes: by looking down while maintaining eye contact is often perceived as submissive or negative in nature (though it can be perceived as judgmental as well), this is a very powerful confrontational tool that creates distance and sends a psychic message to one on the receiving end
  • Walking pace: in the modern business world, a brisk pace indicates the desire to get things done, being on a mission and being energetic. When in public and constantly under scrutiny by other testosterone-filled men measuring, a slower but purposeful gait is a powerful show of calm and control (slowER methodical walk though the validity of having a strong gait and purposeful pace cannot be over-emphasized)
  • Thumbs up: in the times of Roman gladiators, the crowd chose the sparing or ending the life of the loser by either the thumbs-up or thumbs-down gestures
  • Crossed arms: body protection, in times past it was an intentional sheltering of the body’s vitals including the lungs and heart
  • Open palms: to show others that there were no hidden weapons being carried, a show of trust
  • Nostril flaring: allows more air in with which to oxygenate the body in preparation for either fight or flight when threatened
  • Hand shaking: originated from arm wrestling
  • Territoriality: leaning on our possessions (or neutral possessions) to show ownership and protectiveness: cars, houses, chairs, etc.
  • Hand gestures: karate chops, finger stabs & fist/hammerfist punches all signify reinforcement of message, the final word or emphasis of an important point, although as “communication is how the message is received, not given” these are all received relatively poorly by the one on the other end as they show dominance, aggression and argumentativeness

FROM THE ANIMALS

  • Smiling: originally used by primates as a show of either fear or subordination to a more powerful member of the group; in modern it is similar in that it shows a non-threatening and accepting attitude towards the receiver (in carnivores it’s actually a threat)
  • Chin jut: also from primates, showing aggressive intent for a forward and direct attack
  • Baring teeth and flaring of nostrils: again, comes from the act of attacking
  • Sneering: used as a signal to warn other animals of impending attack or defense if necessary
  • Freezing/stillness: when a predator is in the animal’s area, somewhat of a “don’t pick me” signal

We have many similar signs from the animal kingdom that, when put in proper context and researched, have maintained their validity in the urban jungle to this day. We have a more than passing (and less than coincidental) interest in animal movement (everybody really was kung fu fighting), attack strategies and predatory methods and this, in an opinion, is far more valuable than looking back in history at our own past and methods/tactics. Theirs have stood the test of time without change.

One element of learning I try is when one of the family dogs is present, I go through various human body language signs and facial expressions to gauge response and even our friendly K-9s often react in predictable ways towards clear negative and positive projections.

Though not body language, per se, other examples of our survival instinct past and evolution that has manifested in modern-day scenarios:

  1. Sitting with your back to the door/open window creates increased blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and brainwave frequencies back from the Caveman days with the communal fire, multiple people eating in the tent after a kill, sitting with their backs to the wall for protection from both internal and external attack
  2. King Arthur’s round table: designed to create neutrality in meetings but not realizing that his own high-status created a pecking order of importance from those seated next to him (higher power) to those further away (lower power) to those seated diametrically-opposed (competitive)
  3. The term “right-hand man” coming from the fact that the one sitting directly to the leader’s right was the least threat due to the fact it was difficult to stab effectively with your left hand, considering in those days left-handed had a negative stigma attached to them and the staunch majority were right-handed
  4. The handshake. Originated from a grasping of the mid-to-lower arm to ensure there were no hidden weapons that could be pulled at a future point in the interaction
  5. 2nd arm during a handshake. Seemingly-kind, at times can be a hidden attempt to control through touch, establish dominance in a subtle and potentially hidden way
  6. Sitting across from each other at a table. Originally coined the “gunslinger” position due to the fact that squaring off the torso of the body was a sign of competitiveness. (although context-dependent in the modern-day)
  7. After eating, stomach takes blood away from the brain to help digestion (similar to fight-or-flight adrenaline response) and causing the person to not think as clearly. Bad for business decisions, good for romance, extremely good to take advantage of a vulnerable opponent with shady dealings
  8. Frontal display, showing confidence by exhibiting glibly one’s organs to show that they don’t find you threatening in any way, has come back to haunt some as they’ve transferred business tactics into the street world, where violence is a threat and this display is highly-unprotected

***Contagious actions that can give psychological openings pre-conflict: yawning, nervousness, confusion.

In conclusion, as nothing is universal, hope this sheds some light on why we do some of the things we do when angered, scared or anxious and where it comes from in our past.

 

I can´t suspect everybody! – Marcus Linde

On the lack of professionalism in dealing with conflict in German social work and caretaking professions

Today, I arrived at a seminar held by the BGW (Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege). It´s called “Professional Management of Violence and Aggression”. In Germany every working person automatically joins an employer’s liability insurance association. This government run insurance covers workplace accidents. It treats injuries caused by other humans also as workplace accidents. It is also responsible for controlling the companies’ security and prevention measures as well as helping to improve them. The BGW offers these seminars to everyone working in the social sector. For free. No charges. They cover the travel expenses and I´m actually sitting at the desk in my BGW paid hotel room. By the way, I´m not hungry because I just ate on their bill.

A year ago I started thinking about which topic to pick for my B.A. Thesis in social work. I wanted to find out how social work as a highly violent profession is dealing with violence. So I started researching.

Social work violent?
What do you call a bunch of people coming to take your kid from you? Or someone who doesn´t let you out on probation because you had to fight in order to keep your reputation? Or even someone who, legally, demands all your personal information?

Well, I found studies and literature on violence against women, violence against handicapped people, sexual violence against girls, abusive relationships, violence against clients and so forth. I found only one book chapter about client violence towards social workers which examines British literature on the topic. The author complained about the taboo of violence against social workers in German literature. It was written in 2003.

That means reality is ignored by a whole profession of caretakers for more than a decade. So I asked the BGW for data on how many “accidents caused by humans” have been reported regarding social workers. They replied they estimate 193 incidents in 2012. Well, 193 isn´t that much. But what wondered me, is that they were estimating the numbers. They didn´t have any solid data regarding “social workers” due to people not filling out the report correctly.

Today we were told that in 2015 the BGW altogether had about 4,000 reported incidents. That means that the only Job with a higher risk of getting injured by another human is being LEO. They also told us that they did a survey in 2013. They went inside the facilities and questioned the people. What they found out is that only three to five percent of violent incidents resulting in injury are even reported. That means that in reality there are between 80,000 and 130,000 violent incidents towards professionals in the social field every year out of approximately 7 million people.

Let that sink in:
There´s a profession in Germany that is more dangerous than being in Law Enforcement.

How come a whole “scientific community” focusses on the help recipients’ problems and overlooks the ones of the helpers.

Just imagine that for other helping jobs. Hepatitis vaccinations only for patients, tell the nurses to be careful with the pointy things. No oxygen masks for firefighters because we´re too busy handing them to the people in the burning building. Body Armor for the criminals, because if the cops get shot it´s their fault. Everywhere else it´s the other way around. When the army helps out in a disaster, the first thing they do is to set up a tent for shelter, unpack pallets with water bottles and start cooking something for the soldiers. I mean, you gotta eat when you´re supposed to carry sandbags the whole day.

So why not just train staff?
Because they don´t want to be trained.

Training on how to deal with violence and conflicts has to involve learning about the dynamics of it. Unfortunately, that means you have to take a close look at your own worldview. And this is where trouble starts for caretakers. I understand that it´s difficult to be empathetic and resource oriented towards clients and be careful and a little suspicious at the same time.

In my B.A. thesis, I designed a three-day seminar to introduce students of social work to the topic. While three days is enough to fit a lot of role play, physical stuff and theory in, I had to use almost the half of it to let the participants reflect on their worldview, morals and motives for even taking up the job. And to be honest. I don´t think that’s enough time.

This morning one woman reported that she took up a new job a year ago. She´s working in a Workshop for developmentally challenged people. She told us that she´s so tired of work that she thinks about quitting. Why? Because she gets hurt every single day. She mentioned bruises, scratches, black eyes and two weeks in hospital with a ruptured spleen. That woman literally has put others above herself. That kind of person is the reason conditions in the caretaking professions will not change in the near future.

I´m not even talking about policies written to reduce legal liabilities here, which are highly intolerable in my view. This is just about the self-image of the staff and their training. I once taught a nursing class and just gave general hints on how to manipulate the environment to make work safer. Simple stuff like arranging the bed and table in a way to leave room to get out quickly, putting glass bottles away, keeping an eye on the hands of the person. One of the nurses indignantly stated: “how can I do a good job when I suspect everybody?!?”.

That´s the point! We as teachers should focus on the benefits of “suspecting the clients”. Watching their behavior is a key component of the caretaking professions. Expanding those observations towards cues of violent and aggressive behavior improves the quality of the observation. Not only that caretakers become able to protect themselves better, they´re also able to protect the clients better.

Changed behavior towards “violent clients”, denied services, legal problems, self-blaming, future victimization are all things that can be prevented if violence as a possibility is recognized and therefore prevented. Additionally, caretakers will notice subtle changes in clients earlier and more often. This will make them be able to intervene earlier and provide better help. On the side of the professionals, fears can be reduced, psychological casualties prevented, resources to back up the injured staff minimized and general satisfaction with the work environment can be improved. There is no downside to safety in this case, except for the possible pain in reflecting the own behavior, motivation and world view.

 

The Statistics Trap – Randy King

If I can give you any advice as an instructor, it’s to not get stuck in the statistics trap.  As a person who’s just living their life, in this age of disinformation, where we have way too many people telling us way too many things, it’s very easy to fact-check something over and over and over again, even if the source is incorrect.  What I mean by the “statistics trap” is very simple.  A lot of instructors will read fancy statistics, memorize those statistics, and use those statistics constantly, regurgitating them, trotting them out like a proud parent, but without understanding where the stats come from, what the research is, or any other factor that makes that statistic true.  Very simply put, statistics can be used for anything across the board.

The first statistic I used when I started teaching was related to stabbings.  We are a very knife-oriented gym; we teach a lot of blade work. The city I come from, Edmonton Alberta, is lovingly referred to as “Stabmonton” Alberta, due to the fact that gun violence is low, but knife and machete violence is very high.  We used the general stat that everybody used, which is that 80% of knife attacks come underhand, and that’s how the attack lines work.  

When we built our first curriculum, we designed it off that statistic, since I don’t go around knifing people. I’ve been stabbed, I have friends that have been stabbed, but the studies showed that most attacks were coming underhand to the lower body, side, kidney region.  I ran with that stat for two years. Every day of those two years, people would come to me with anecdotal evidence, saying other things, like, hey when I was stabbed, this happened, or, I’m a paramedic, and this is happening, etc etc.  And I held steadfast and true to the statistic that I had read, in a book from a country that I’m not from.  When I delved deeper, I realized that the survey that the statistics were based on had included prison stabbings.  If you know anything about prisons, the weapons that are used are generally point-oriented weapons.  So, of course, the study was skewed towards  stabbing at that low angle, because so many prison stabbings come at that angle.  

Why bring this up? I had fallen into the statistics trap.  It was ridiculous of me to tell people who worked as EMTs, to tell people who had been stabbed, to tell people who were doormen, that stabbings happened a certain way, when all their experience didn’t line up with the statistic.  It was ridiculous of me to disregard my own story. My favourite joke is that I’ve been stabbed two and a half times – I’ve been stabbed once in the leg, once in the face, and once by a fork (that’s the half).  Every single time I was stabbed, it was an overhand stab, it looked like a monkey dance with a knife, an overhand swing coming at me.  This was also the evidence I was getting consistently from EMTs, people I trusted and respected, but because I had this fancy statistic and I was an “expert”, all of them turned their brains off and stopped arguing with me because of the fact that I could quote a statistic.  

Understand the information that you’re using, understand where it comes from. You can use it as an example, but nowadays most statistics on the internet are written as clickbait.  These sites want to give you a stat like, “1 in every 7 males with blue eyes is attacked by foxes”. That’s a crazy stat!  Obviously, you have to understand how surveys work, and how sample sizes work.  There was a great article by the Huffington Post on the statistic that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted while in places of higher education.  That article then breaks it down very well …  if you read the article, you see it’s not 1 in 4; that number is exceptionally high.  That  number is the 1 in 4 people who took the survey, and it just means that a large number of the people who took the survey were been people that had already been sexually assaulted.  Now, I am not saying that sexual assault is not a horrible thing.  What I’m saying is that the number that everybody’s throwing around, the 1 in 4, was used by the New York Times as clickbait, without the full study being released.  

One of my favourite bits from the great comedian Bill Burr is on stats, and how he hates stats. He does this whole bit on how you can go to iamright.com and use a stat to prove that you are right or wrong, as long as it lines up with your vision of things. That’s the problem with most of this stuff; the statistics you’re using just happen to line up with your view of the world, and so you take that stat at face value without going further into the information. Then you’re disseminating information to people that is not intelligent, it’s not making people more powerful, it’s just making people more crazy about number crunching, just blurting out things to make it sound like they are more intelligent, again just becoming really proud parents.  

The stat Bill Burr uses is about shark attacks.  His bit is, “did you know, most shark attacks happen in shallow water?”  And he pauses, and everybody’s thinking, “yup, yup, yup, that makes sense” and then he states it very clearly, “why do you think that happens?”  

“Because that’s where the PEOPLE are, people are in SHALLOW water, so of course shark attacks are going to happen in shallow water”.  

This problem of the statistics trap is becoming more and more prevalent in the marketing of self-defense programs.  I’m not saying don’t use statistics, and I’m not saying change your marketing plan. I’m saying that every one of those statistics should have a little star beside it, and the star should say, “as of the study here, where they use a sample size of this”.  Because there is no study in the world that takes 100% of the population, who then all send their surveys in, and who then don’t lie, so then that stat is completely true.  You have to take all these stats with a grain of salt.  

Rory Miller sums this up succinctly as well, just to hammer this point across one more time. His favourite saying is, “Correlation is not causation”.  The stat he drops is very simple.  “Did you know, that the more churches in a city, the more violent crime that happens in that city?”  The wheels start turning in everyone’s heads, “oh yeah, that makes sense, uh, obviously more churches means there’s more religious tensions …” and then Rory breaks it down just as simply as Bill Burr does.  He says, “No. The fact that there are more churches in the city means there are more PEOPLE in the city, and more people in that city means there’s more violent crime in that city”.  More in this case not being a per capita rate, but simply more total cases.  The language used and the statistics used are very important.  

So. Do me a favor.  Do your due diligence on statistics!  Find the stat you like, if it fits how your brain works, if you think that this stat is true, read the actual study.  Don’t take the clip, don’t do the thing that happened on IFLS (the science publication), where they put up a headline that said “Cannabis Proven Not From Earth!”  People shared and shared and shared and shared, and loved it, and said “yeah, cannabis isn’t from Earth, that makes sense!” If you had clicked the link instead of just reading the clickbait title, instead of just reading the 1 in 4 – the article actually wasn’t about that at all.  The article was about people only reading headlines.  

As an instructor, it’s your duty not to fall into the statistics trap.   

 

Conflict Management for Kids – Jose Tadeo

Our job as parents is to prepare our kids to deal with the real world when we are not around.  And a big part of that is conflict management.

As adults, what is it that legally defines our actions as self-defense?  Each city has its own laws, but the gold standard has been that we didn’t have the option to walk away, and our only recourse against bodily injury or death was for us to use violence too.  

Why can’t we use this model for our kids too?  I have.  Furthermore, I have emphasized to my son that articulation is a key component in this.  He must be able to explain that he didn’t have the option to just walk away.

This model actually prepares him for the real world.  Telling kids to “just tell the teacher” is useless.  Tell the teacher, after the fact, that he was pummeled?  And what about the zero-tolerance policies that many schools have implemented, in which the bullied kid is twice the victim.  First he gets beat up.  Then the school suspends or expels him for getting beat up.  Or what about the parents that take their kids to a martial arts school, but still don’t teach their kids that violence has legal consequences?

Let me share some personal information and experiences.

My son is autistic and as a result has a speech delay that has drawn some bullies. His mother and I have opposing philosophies when it comes to dealing with bullies.  She drilled into him that he was not supposed to fight in school.  And if anyone bothered him, the only thing he was allowed to do was “tell the teacher”.  My son did as his mother instructed when a bully was hitting him, and as a result, my son was limping for a week.

I told my son, “I don’t care if your mother gets mad.  I don’t care if your teacher gets mad.  If someone is hitting you, you need to defend yourself and hit back.  Otherwise, you are going to be injured again.  And don’t worry about getting into trouble, I will be in your corner.”  And I taught my son a few moves he could use in a fight.

Sure enough, next time a bully hit my son, my son hit back. The school attempted to punish my son, but I made an appointment to speak with the school principal.  I told the principal: “You are not out there in the yard to protect my son, the teacher is not out there to protect my son.  I have told my son to walk away from verbal taunts and insults.  But when it comes to physical violence, it is important that he defend himself and prevent injury.  Now you want to punish my son?  That is not acceptable.  What you need to do is keep that bully away from my son, for the bully’s own protection.”

In other words, bullying is not something your children should fight alone.  Parents need to be informed and involved.  Parents are the only real advocates that kids have.  

I have read too many news stories of some kid committing suicide due to bullying.  And my questions have always been: “Where are the parents?  Why didn’t they stop this?”  

Kids can be cruel.  Kids taunt and insult each other all the time.  Kids make fun of each other. Parents have the power to inoculate their kids so that taunts and insults don’t make our kids bleed to death from superficial wounds.

How?  

  1.  By showing our kids that we, as parents, love them and that our love and acceptance of them overrides the opinions of the brats and punks our kids meet in school.  
  2. By teaching kids that opinions and insults by other people are powerless unless we give them power.  In other words, teach our kids that some opinions have no value and are of no consequence.  Best thing to do?  Walk away.

I know that a lot of people will think I am a horrible parent for doing this, but I actually had my son watch the first 20 minutes of Full Metal Jacket in which Gunnery Sergeant Hartman verbally decimates the privates.  I asked my son, “Do you see them crying or getting physically hurt because of the insults?”  Of course not.  They are just words.  

Words can’t hurt you if you don’t allow them too.  But physical violence can leave permanent damage.  So you better be able to defend yourself.  And you better have a good reason to defend yourself.  Because defending yourself is only half the battle.  If you don’t want to get into trouble in school, and if you don’t want to end up in prison as an adult, you better be able to articulate that you had no choice but to defend yourself.  And I also told my son that every fight has the potential to lead to death.  I told him about a news story in which two 5th grade girls got into a fight, and one of them died due to the head injuries she sustained.  (here is a link to that story http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/11-year-old-girl-joanna-ramos-dies-fight-grader-boy-article-1.1028760)

Then there are parents that will just pull kids out of a school and transfer them from school to school or home school them.  That is running away from the problem.  How is that kid going to deal with conflict in the workplace when he/ she grows up? It is the awkward kids that get targeted.  Rather than shielding such kids and hiding them, parents need to teach them how to socialize.  Yes, I said it, teaching kids to be social is a self-defense life skill.

In Spanish there is a phrase that says: “El valiente vive hasta que el cobarde quiere.”  I won’t attempt an exact translation, but for the purposes of this article, I will loosely translate it as: A bully lives only so long as the coward allows it.

People treat us the way we condition them to treat us.  We set the boundaries.  That is why thugs will do an interview and test a person’s boundaries before they strike.  Teaching kids to deal with bullies, set boundaries, and be cognizant that violence has serious consequences are things we cannot afford to fail to teach our children.

Biomechanics of Power – Jari Peuhkurinen

”The degree of clarity with which you define something determines its usefulness to you” -Blauer Maxim

This article is part of a larger project of mine where I’m going to make laws of physics more understandable for martial arts and self-defense. My interest does not lie in the calculations or measurements of conventional physics, but in the practical part of physics; how can understanding basic physics make your action, training and teaching better?

My laboratory for these biomechanical basics is training and teaching concept called Improvement in Action. It´s not a martial art nor is it a system, but a structure of concepts and principles how to improve your training and teaching of self-defense.

When I started this project a few years back, I was looking for the right field of study what to follow, so that I can make sense of the laws that affect us all regardless of the art or a system of training that you follow. Finding the right field of science was not easy. Physics and laws of mechanics provide the basis for these concepts, but they do not tell us how to apply those in training. Biomechanics is a field of study what includes the human (bio) element into the picture, but biomechanics are a lot about measuring the performance. The only measurement in self-defense that we truly need is the effect of our action in the opponent, how can we measure that so that every time I perform a technique, the result is the same? Effect of action is not something we can measure in self-defense, we can only presume what the effects could be and train so that the technique we perform gives us the best possible probabilities of maximum effect.

Also biomechanics do not include the psychological part of the action in to the equation. As we all know, psychological part plays a huge part in our performance under stress and also in training. However, there is another field that includes the psychological part also, it’s called kinesiology. Kinesiology addresses biomechanical, and psychological mechanisms of movement. There is very little or no information on kinesiology and martial arts available. So you can see there is a lot of fields that need to be studied to make the information of basics physic laws applicable to self-defense training.

In this article I will address the proper terms that should be used when we talk about power – effect in the training and teaching.

Basic biomechanical terms

Power (P)is the rate of doing work. It is the amount of energy consumed per unit time. Power does not have direction and it is a vector quantity. and it is measured in watts (w). So power, when used normally in training context does not have the right properties to describe the energy in the movement. Of course we are interested in energy consumption, but since power dos not have a direction, it is not the proper term to use when talking about the energy that we deliver to our opponent during altercation via technique. Still just as a term, power is most commonly used, so there is nothing wrong with as long as you understand and can explain the real meaning of power.

Force (F) causes an object with mass to change its velocity. The original form of Newton’s second law states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes with time. Equation for force is F=ma (mass x acceleration) and it is measured in Newtons. This sounds more what could be used in training. So basically if we want to develop more force we can train on two things; increasing the mass or increasing the acceleration of that mass. In my opinion concentrating on acceleration in technique is too precise, if we compare it to developing over all speed in our technique. But we do use concept of force when we create force against the ground to cause motion. Motion enables production of momentum.

Momentum (p) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object, quantified in kilogram-meters per second.So momentum is measured in kilograms-meters per second. Mass and velocity of that mass; that´s something we can use in training. In my opinion, momentum is the proper term that should be used when talking about “power” in techniques. Momentum has direction and it has the element we can develop; velocity. We produce momentum with the movement of our body mass and the velocity of that mass.

Speed (v) is a scalar quantity that refers to “how fast an object is moving.” Speed can be thought of as the rate at which an object covers distance. A fast-moving object has a high speed and covers a relatively large distance in a short amount of time. Contrast this to a slow-moving object that has a low speed; it covers a relatively small amount of distance in the same amount of time.

Velocity (v) is a vector quantity that refers to “the rate at which an object changes its position.” Imagine a person moving rapidly – one step forward and one step back – always returning to the original starting position. While this might result in a frenzy of activity, it would result in a zero velocity. Because the person always returns to the original position, the motion would never result in a change in position. Since velocity is defined as the rate at which the position changes, this motion results in zero velocity. If a person in motion wishes to maximize their velocity, then that person must make every effort to maximize the amount that they are displaced from their original position. Every step must go into moving that person further from where he or she started. For certain, the person should never change directions and begin to return to the starting position.

So simply but, the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity, the rate of change of its position. 

While velocity is the magnitude of speed in the movement, Impulse is force over the time interval for which it acts on the target. You need to separate these two; velocity of the movement and the time which the force of that movement acts on the opponent.
This is very simple and useful concept to understand. If you have a force of 100 units and that force acts on the target period of 10 seconds. The target receives 10 units of force per second. However, if that 100 units of force acts for only 2 seconds (which is extremely long time for example for a strike) it delivers 50 units per second to the target. What you would prefer is the force of 100 units to act 10 seconds on the target, deliver the force of 100 every second. So basically you want the impulse to contain as much force as possible, for the longest time possible.

There a several ways we can use this concept:

  • We can shorten the time of our movements impulse as in striking. This means recoiling the movement. According to Newton´s III law every force has an equal counter force in opposite direction. So in reality when we strike our opponent, his counter force acts on us in opposite direction and collision transfers our momentum to the opponent. The sum of the momentums stays the same after a collision.
  • We make the acting time longer and utilize movement as a pushing movement. Still we want to have as much force as possible as long time as possible in the impulse. We don’t recoil the movement but keep applying the pressure forward.
  • Proper timing enables to increase the impulse by hitting the target while it has opposite direction to our movement. This two-way movement can be used with proper timing or by making it happen by pulling opponent or keeping target in place.
  • In defense we can utilize impulse by moving with the force so it affects us longer time and this way reducing the force acting on us. Basically the movement acts as shock-absorber so impulse time grows and movement loses its momentum.

Energy/Power Potential

Power potentialis a term that I use to clarify importance of proper body biomechanics in training. Power potential is always present, no matter what the position of our body is, or the situation we are in. It is simply the capacity what we have (not yet produced), in that moment to produce momentum or muscle force and direct it to our opponent. Think of it as stored energy we have in our body, cause of our body´s positioning, ready to be delivered. We should train to maintain proper structure of our body in relation to our opponent’s body, so that in every situation we have the maximum power potential in our use.

Do not confuse this with the physics term potential energy, which is energy that accumulates in our body when we have the possibility to drop our body weight.

We don’t always have the distance required to produce a lot of momentum. As you remember, momentum is a product of mass and its velocity. What happens when we do not have the distance to produce a lot of velocity, but we have the possibility to produce movement? I have separated three different situations:

  1. There is no distance between your tool and the target, you are already in contact and the starting velocity is zero. You cannot produce momentum, but you can produce muscleforce. So this is the situation where you use what you have in your muscles. For an example, a pushing movement with your hands to create distance between your bodies.
  2. There is short distance between the tool and the target. For example, in clinching position, you don’t have the room for maximum momentum, so it requires force; acceleration of the mass. Think about Bruce Lee´s 10-inch punch.
  3. You have the distance to produce momentum and you always try to maximize your body movement.

All these three positions need to be practiced. Be well versed in different distances so you can maintain the maximum power potential in all situations.

Balance is crucial if we want to produce and direct momentum. There can be no effective movement with direction if there is no balance. There can be no controlled movement without balance. So if there is not balanced structure, there is no power potential.

Definition for power potential could be something like this: balanced position, from where we have potential to use our muscle force to produce controlled, explosive linear or angular movement and direct it as needed.

Delivery Potential

(Power) Delivery Potential is another term of mine and it describes the variety in quantity of power potential. We always aim to have to have the maximum potential in our use in any particular position and situation, but we also need to understand that there is always loss of force during the movement. We should train to be better at delivering the whole potential and lose less in the delivery. So if we have power potential of 100 units, the maximum what we can have, there will always be less than that 100 units delivered to the opponent. There are several components that effect on the delivery:

Distance is an element in the equation of our technique and its effect. To put it simply. If you are too far away from the target you need to reach. That affects your structure and balance and it has direct effect on your delivery. If the distance is too short, you don´t have distance to build maximum momentum. Proper delivery movement has to choose based on distance.

Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of solid surfaces. If there is no friction, the power potential will have little or no effect on the target since most of the power potential will be lost from the ground to opposite direction. This is the reason why hockey players grab the opponent when they hit during a fight. This clarifies the importance of proper structure also. Friction force will work for us, when we deliver momentum.

Structure is composed of bones, joints, articular cartilage, ligaments, tendons, muscles and that kind of tissue that keeps internal organs at their place. This is our engine and vehicle that produces and delivers the energy to our opponent during altercation. Structure needs to be without a weak links, for us to optimize its energy production and delivery. Most common examples of poor structure you can see when people hit something and their joints give in and bend during impulse. That is force leaking from the delivery. Remember that according to Newton’s 3rd law every force has an equal and opposite force acting on the objects. That bent wrist during impulse is the Newton’s law in action. Contact with the opponent produces the opposite force acting on our structure.  

Pressure (p) is multi versed term in martial arts and can be used to describe for example the psychological pressure you need to create for your opponent. In here it is a physics term that measures the force applied perpendicular to the surface of an object per unit area over which that force is distributed. Pressure is measured in Pascals. Again to put it simply, we want to deliver and focus our power potential into small area to gain more pressure to the target and create more penetration. Think if could focus the power of our low roundhouse kick to a surface in size of a pin? It would have more penetrating power than a boot tip. The idea of pressure is the same as in impulse. Think about a bullet shot towards you, if you could divide the pressure bullet creates to your whole body area, you would hardly feel it, but because the momentum of that bullet is concentrated to a small area, it has a huge penetrating capacity.

But again there are situations where we want the momentum to effect on larger surface, for example to create more stopping movement.  

Angle in which the momentum is deliver to the target is also of consequence. As mentioned in the pressure is force applied perpendicular to the surface. So we look for 90-degree angle of delivering the momentum. Anything other than that and part of the force is redirected from the target and has no effect.

Effect Potential

Effect Potential is the last part of the movement. Maximum effect potential is ideal result that we look for in any movement we make. It is the proper delivery and directing of power potential that enables the maximum effect. From physical point of view, following two components create the maximum effect in our opponent, if the power potential and delivery are in order:

Tool and Target are important factors of effect. You need to deliver momentum with proper tool and choose the right target for that tool. To put it plainly, do not hit opponent’s kneecap with your fist. Even when you have the momentum and delivery potential, the effect will most likely be not in its maximum. However, if you change the tool, for example to tip of a boot, the effect will probably be closer to maximum what we could hope for.

These two components of effect potential could have been included in the earlier sections too, since all of the other components that result in the overall effect our movement has, is dependent on the opponent’s psychology and physiology.  Basically there are only six desired effects we can hope to achieve with our action:

  1. Pain in order to make opponent give up and comply
  2. Make him out of balance to better our position
  3. Cause unconsciousness (striking)
  4. Disrupt the flow of blood to the brain (strangle)
  5. Disrupt the flow of air to the lungs. (choking)
  6. Stop the heart from beating.

If you really think the whole concept on potential (power-delivery-effect) you can understand why the laws of physics, mechanics, biomechanics and kinesiology are not completely straight forward when talking about self-defense and martial arts and they need to be applied. Of course if we only want to measure how much force or momentum we have in our straight punch, we can use the biomechanical basics to better our movement that way, but for actual self-defense situation it holds almost no meaning, since the effect is only thing that matter, and that cannot be measured effectively.

What we can learn from these concepts is how to make our action and our training better. What to look for in the training.

Self-Righteous Entitlement – Wim Demeere

Photo: Martin Shkreli

One of the recurring issues I have when teaching self-defense is that many people have trouble understanding their inner dialogue. In particular, how it goes off track and leads them into trouble. There are all kinds of reasons for that, I’m not going into it today. Suffice it to say that it’s something you see all around you, every day, in varying degrees. You see it in the asshole who cuts you off in traffic, almost causing you to run over a pedestrian. Or the idiot who bumps you into an elderly lady because him being late for a meeting is just so important and you barely manage to catch her before she falls (and breaks her brittle bones). We’ve all met those guys.

Funny thing though, if you point out how rude they are and how their actions endanger others, they get all self-righteous on you and somehow you’re the unreasonable one and they’re the victim. As in, how dare you even speak to them like that!

Truth be told, sometimes we’re that guy. Be honest now, you’ve sinned in this department just as I have. There’s a difference though: reasonable people eventually realize they are messing up and become ashamed of their own behavior. Then they try to change their ways.  Assholes don’t care, they just keep on going with the bad attitude.

The problem with not caring about anything but yourself is first of all, you’ll eventually start believing your own bullshit:

  • You are so much better than everybody else.
  • Those losers are so stupid, they’ll never get it.
  • Nobody can touch you, you’re so awesome.
  • Anybody who tries, you’ll kick his loser ass.

And so on.

The thing these guys don’t understand is that it’s not because people don’t speak back to you or don’t beat the crap out of you for being an egotistical asshole, that they don’t want to. Regular folks don’t always fight over stupid arguments, but they can sure feel like it.

If you scare them a little by turning on your mad monkey vibe, they’ll probably back off. It works, you win. If that happens enough (it often does; being aggressive works very well), then this becomes your reality. You feel it is the natural order of things that you can flip somebody off when they annoy you and never suffer any consequences for it. Why? Well, because the last fifteen times you did it, they cowered and went away. So in your experience, that’s how the world works and you’re absolutely right: in your experience that is certainly the case.

But now we come to a favorite quote of a scientist friend of mine:

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

Just because that’s how it always turned out for you, doesn’t mean it always will. Just because they didn’t punch you in the face, doesn’t mean they didn’t come close. And you’ll never know why they held back.

Only an idiot thinks everybody else will always restrain themselves like that.

The second problem with being an self-righteous asshole is that because of the dynamics I just described, you eventually get a sense of entitlement about it. It is your right to be an asshole and act as if nobody else matters. Why would you learn to settle matters with a compromise? Why would you even bother seeing things from the other person’s perspective? You’re awesome! Everybody else sucks!

Keep that attitude going long enough and your decision making skills will lead you down a path you can’t return from. It’s just a matter of time before you act self-righteous and obnoxious around somebody who won’t put up with your shit. If you’re lucky, you get out in one piece. If not, well… Here’s a story one of my clients told me a few days ago.

He’s an avid hunter and was out with a friend and his dog, going for game birds. The hunting grounds were close to a river with a path next to it. That path is popular with cyclists and people going for a walk. So they made sure they stopped shooting well before they got to the path. His friend however made the mistake of not putting his dog back on a leash (that’s the law here) and it got in front of a guy on a bike. The guy fell. The friend went over and asked if the guy was alright, said he was sorry, it was his fault and is there anything he could do to help. You can’t really ask for more than somebody owning up to his mistake and offering reparations.

The guy wanted none of it, replied that he should kick the friend’s ass and moved forward. The friend lifted one arm in a defensive posture and the conversation went something like this:

Guy: “Are you scared?”

Friend: “Yes, I am.”

Guy: “You better be.”

After some more huffing and puffing, he got on his bike and left, buzzing my client and missing him by an inch.

 Here’s the part he missed:

  • The friend is a second degree Judo black belt who can more than hold his own.
  • My client had already positioned himself strategically to take the guy out as he threatened the friend.
  • My client went into the flinch guard as the guy buzzed him and told me he was sorely tempted to knock him off his bike with the elbow shot we’ve been training for months. The range was good and it would have worked; he hits really hard.
  • One of their main concerns was that getting in an altercation while hunting would mean they lose their license if the cops got involved. They didn’t want that so they didn’t act.

If you look at it from another point of view, here’s the story again:

A guy gets self-righteous at a man armed with a hunting rifle who offers him a sincere apology for an honest mistake. The guy doesn’t accept the apology and threatens to assault the armed man, while his trained dog is standing next to him along with his self-defense trained friend who’s also carrying a hunting rifle. The main reason they didn’t act was a piece of paper.

Can you see the disconnect with reality?

Threatening two men armed with firearms and a trained dog? In what universe is that a smart move? Probably in the same one where you say “You don’t have the balls to shoot me?” and then eat a bullet?

This is the kind of slippery slope reasoning self-righteous entitlement leads to. I’ve seen it all over the world, in all layers of society. People get used to treating others like crap and just assume there will never be consequences because so far, there haven’t been any. But they fail to understand that it takes two to tango. They refuse to acknowledge how their behavior puts them in a situation that escalates into violence. A situation in which they don’t come out on top, at best.

 When you come to blows with somebody, you are part of the equation. For better or worse, your actions brought you there. Hopefully, you just failed to avoid the problem. But there are also those situations in which you are part of the problem. It would be a mistake to think you can get away with that forever.

So don’t be an asshole.

 

Spetsnaz Training – Mikhail Didenko

Russian Spetsnaz: “I request an airstrike to my location!”

Who can defeat a suicider? When you fight you usually don’t plan a heroic death, you think about a win, right? Even if you are a counter-terroristic squad member you think about a successful completion of an operation, and about your family who waits for you at home. You want to stay healthy and alive, and death is not a desirable variant. But when you are a suicider, then you don’t care whether your body will be damaged or destroyed. You can let your enemy to break your hand, but to bite his throat. Or even let him to stab you with a knife thus coming closer to his throat again. Does that mean these suicidal terrorists are undefeatable?

No. For example, Alexey Prokhorenko, died a hero after requesting airstrikes to his own location, when he was surrounded by terrorists in Syria. This incident was widely discussed by media. The Russian officer claimed to be a member of famous Russian Spetsnaz (Elite Special Forces). Was that deed a unique thing? Or maybe a result of Spetsnaz training? Let’s get deeper into the Russian history and Russian Elite Forces training.

beret1

Officially Russian Spetsnaz was established in 1950 and was included into the mysterious GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff), but technically the special squads of scouts and raiders existed long before that date. They could have different names, but their structure and training were similar (and the differences were dictated by the tasks). Say, Elite Forced of the Soviet VDV (Airborne Forces) would prepare a ground for landing by “cleaning” it, when the GRU Spetsnaz would make a raid or do reconnaissance.

Anyway the main structure of the training was the same (besides experimental groups). It based on the common army NFP (Physical Training Regulation), but any commander could also include his own practices and techniques, sometimes extreme. One of such methods will be discussed in this article.
Main parameters of the NFP-2016:
– Individual Training
– Gymnastics and Acrobatics
– Hand-to-hand Fighting
– Obstacle Zone (Conditioning Course)
– Running and Athletics
– Skiing
– Military Applied Swimming
– Sports Games
The NFP uses point rating system depending on age and other candidate parameters. However we can give an approximate average acceptance test as an example of specific figures.

21

  • 1. Chin-ups – 25
  • 2. Push-ups – 90
  • 3. Abdominals (flexion/extension) – 100
  • 4. Running 100 meters (Shuttle run 10×10) – 12.7 sec (25 sec)
  • 5. Cross-country race 3000 meters – 11.00 minutes
  • 6. Bench press (equal to own weight, but not more than 100 kilos) – 10
  • 7. Hand-to-hand fighting
    – Demonstration of techniques (punches, kicks) – 2 minutes, using the boxing bag
    – Freestyle sparring including throws and submission holds – 3 fights 3 minutes each
  • 8. Jumping squats (leg changing) – 90
  • 9. KSU (complex power exercises) 8 sequential sets: 10 push-ups, 10 abdominal exercises, 10 squat position-push-up position, 10 burpees. 8 sequential sets without a pause.

All exercises are performed without a pause.

2011090101

Mostly education consisted of two things: running and shooting. As the Soviet Army saying goes, You must shoot like a cowboy and run like his horse. Of course the soldiers would run with full backpacks. The hand-to-hand fighting was not a main part of the training program. Still the program was so packed that those people were actually undefeatable later in their street conflicts, and some of those masters skills seemed to be fantastic until you saw with your own eyes.

No wonder – only a gifted person with a sports background could be called to Spetsnaz. Plus it should be a smart, intelligent person. Somebody who is a good boxer and a chess player at the same time. Have you met many of them in your life? We also should mention that training supposed to strengthen the morale spirit of soldiers which is the core, the main thing to win.

So, stamina was first and most of these guys didn’t look like Schwarzenegger (or even Rambo). Especially if such a person was also a spy – a regular man needed, who was not easy to notice in a crowd, who didn’t look suspicious. Tall guys were usually selected to “storm troopers” squads when you didn’t need to hide. And a “Conan the Barbarian” cannot run for hours with munitions and weapons on his back. However, it depended on a situation. As one of the Spetsnaz leaders said, The main weapons of Spetsnaz are intelligence and will. So if you would see some of the legendary Russian Elite Forces members on a street you would never recognize them. They don’t want to look like commandoes, they want to be considered real professionals – and they are.

1398315113_003

One of the training main parts is obstacle zone (conditioning course). We all know how usual military obstacle zones look like (standard one is of 200 meters long according to the NFP). Usually a prepared soldier can go through it in seconds (especially if attractive girls from magazines make pictures of him). Unlike it the Spetsnaz obstacle zones are longer and more difficult. The distance can be much longer than a kilometer and it takes more than an hour to go through it. Remember, we talk about prepared people who train every day, so a civilian person would finish it in a day or more (if would).

One of the GRU obstacle zone’s length was more 15 kilometers with depressions, elevations, wooded areas (with windbreak), water areas and a lot of engineering structures. Two battalions of soldiers (approx. 700 men) and students of the officers school (approx. 50 men) could train there by weeks without even noticing each other.

[SEE MORE TRAINING PHOTOS]

Now we will know about an extreme training method which was not an common obligatory thing (it depended on a commander again):

– Naked soldier enters the little room where a rat is waiting for him. A rat driven into a corner is a dangerous thing. A soldier should kill it with bare hands.
– A soldier should eat a frog alive.
– A soldier is put into a coffin with common water snakes (they are not poisonous) for a couple of hours
– A soldier is throttled with a plastic bag after a sparring – of course not to death.

The main education principle is simple as you can see – training should be at least as hard as real situation (of preferably even harder).

Is that the reason for Russian soldiers to die non captured, to direct airstrikes to their own locations? No. The ability to die at war is the common and popular Russian tradition which is described in many films and books. It was used for centuries, and is used nowadays. As the saying goes, Russians don’t give up. Unlike terrorists Russians want to live, but a heroic death (self-sacrifice) is very honored in the Russian tradition. It is difficult to say when this tradition appeared, but it is ancient enough. Maybe it appeared simultaneously with Russia itself. Maybe this is the part of the Orthodox Tradition: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), King James Bible.

https://youtu.be/hETLHiELEa0
VV MVD (Interior Ministry Troops) – their main tasks are riots repression, hostage release and criminals detention.


https://youtu.be/PREPGQLhrdI
VDV (Airborne Forces) – their main tasks are air assault, liquidation of enemies, gaining a beachhead
The soldiers in these films are not from Spetsnaz, still you can learn something about the Soviet training.