Guest Article – Page 13 – Conflict Manager

Trigger Types: Confirmation, Opportunity and Necessity – Schalk Holloway

We can set our triggers in two broad categories – proactive and reactive. Proactive is when we still have initiative. Reactive is when the aggressor has initiative. Confirmation Triggers fall into a proactive sphere. Opportunity Triggers and Necessity Triggers fall into a reactive sphere. When we are proactive we are acting. When we are reactive we are reacting. Meaning, when I notice a potential threat, I can flag him, decide or select certain triggers, and when I see them I act. Reactive means I have missed that evaluation process and I am now left responding to the confirmed threat’s initiative.

For example. Proactive is when I flag a pair of potential muggers before they attack. I can now set “if one of them pulls a knife I will do this” or “if one of them demands something from me” as a signal, trigger and response. A Confirmation Trigger was used. If I miss flagging the potential muggers and they jump me with a knife against my throat I have to kick into reactive mode. I can still run an IF THEN clause but now I will need to set Opportunity or Necessity Triggers. In terms of Opportunity it can be something like “if knife guy looks away I will do this.” In terms of Necessity it can be something like “if his buddy says kill him then I will do this.”

This breakdown of Confirmation, Opportunity and Necessity Triggers serves as a great training tool. It helps the learner to understand different tactics as well as wisdom in terms of when to deploy certain types of techniques. It also serves as an easy way to categorize the triggers into more memorable subsets.

Negative Influence Factors
All though there are others I am going to list the main negative influence factors in executing this Just Right Response.

1. Emotional State
If I can use an analogy that is still very active in our industry, this question has to do with whether the defender is functioning with his human (cognitive), monkey (emotional) or lizard (survival) brain. The decision making processes and goals differ in all three of these states. They form a linear line with human on the one side and lizard on the other. By implication, the more you go to the one side the less in control the other side is. Your emotional state thus influences your ability to make certain types of decisions.

The primary emotions we deal with in confrontations are fear and indignation or anger. The more scared or angry you get the more difficult it becomes to make good decisions. The problem with this is that the moment you become emotionally led you don’t always notice it. You think you are functioning normally but seldomly are. I’m not speaking about becoming or trying to be completely unemotional. It is normal, healthy, and can be beneficial for you to experience certain emotional and physiological changes under these conditions – I am talking about the fine line where you move from experiencing them to becoming led by them.

Going back to our thinking on a Just Right Response is becomes glaringly obvious that your emotional state can seriously influence this. If the emotions of fear or anger take over you might respond in any one of these: Too fast, too late, with too much force or with too little. Remember you observe and interpret data differently when emotional, you orient yourself differently to incoming data as well, so any decision you make is based on possibly faulty data. If your freeze response kicks in you might respond too late and with no force. If your fight response kicks in you possibly respond too fast and with too much force. The idea is to try and remain in control until it’s necessary or wise not to do so any more.

2. Accurate Mental Models
All of us store models of what threat signals look like in our subconscious. Your foundational models are based on simplistic data sets – an object travelling at your head really fast or a sudden shadow moving into your line of sight or a really loud bang. The reality however is that criminal attacks, depending on the type of criminal or attack, can send out very complex or minute signals that they are a threat. Also, the effective criminal works hard at actually hiding these already complex or minute signals. Understanding what valid threat signals LOOK or SOUND or FEEL or SMELL like is key to setting up a Just Right Response.

This is difficult without much experience and/or good training. The problem with much experience is the obvious and inherent dangers involved. Yes, we can learn first hand about the signals, the twitch we missed, the change in face colouration we missed, the slight shift in stance we missed, the hand ducking behind the back or into a pocket that we missed, the momentary change in his eyes and where they’re focusing, we can learn from these but we’re not guaranteed to walk away in one piece.

The problem with training is twofold. First of all it’s just whether you are training with these signals integrated or not in the first place – and whether you are being encouraged to explore, set and practice your triggers. Second of all it’s whether it’s being done in a realistic manner. Remember, you won’t just be dealing with the physical signals, but also with things like emotional state, presence, projection of power and intimidation, all of these change your brain’s ability to deal with the situation effectively as it provides more incoming data albeit at a more subconscious level.

3. Data Overload
Data overload can be approached from two different angles – time constraints and volume. Both of them create an overload effect. The first creates it due to the fact that your brain does not have enough time to deal with all of the incoming signals. The second creates it due to pure volume. There is simply too much happening at once for your brain to deal with it effectively.

Data overload is one of the key motivators for hammering effective situational awareness and range skills into our students. If you are able to pick up the development of a situation in a timely manner then you will have, by definition, more time to evaluate the incoming signals accurately. If you ingrain the simple, but not always so easy, habit of maintaining certain ranges from potential threats you immediately buffer your abilities substantially. The shorter the range the less time you have to evaluate and make decisions. The shorter the range the less you can see and less data you available to accurately evaluate and make decisions.

Training Tips
Signal and Trigger Discussions
Most of self defense training is geared towards the response side of this process. Consider stopping your class every now and again asking them about signals – and then about their individual triggers. Keep it short, maybe a minute or two. This will also help you pick up whether they actually have a good knowledge base of signals and a good idea of what would be good triggers for them as individuals.

Pick a Number
When doing striking combinations or pad work let the students pick a number between one and five. Let them pull of the combo when they hear that number. Then with variations in tempo, rhythm and volume count from one to five. The idea is that they only strike when they hear their number – and do so fast and effectively. Change it randomly switching over to the alphabet or different number strings.

Scenario Training
Include full blown scenario training into your classes. Teach your students how to realistically model certain signals when they are playing the role of the aggressor. Also, consider getting involved every now and again. Unexpected jump in on a scenario and really amp up the pressure. Or do something new. This will cause them to go either into an unplanned emotional or data overload state – or trip up their existing mental models.

*These are concepts and models that we, as in our training community, frequently use. This is the first time that I have attempted to pen them down upon Gary’s request. If any of the readers have any input or relevant research to share it would be much appreciated.

Open-hand vs Closed-fist – Amir Niknam

Hello, I’m Amir, a self defense instructor from Holland, and recently I’ve shot a couple of videos featuring a force meter: a device that measures the impact of a strike. The videos show that open-hand slaps can be more effective than strikes with a closed-fist.

Background

The device was originally designed for Taido, a martial art with some very unorthodox techniques, as a way to show students exactly how they are improving. Later, we also started using the device as a way to experiment with various techniques, and determine which generates the most force. This is where the force meter became interesting for self defense.

I’ve learned from Explosive Self Defence System (ESDS) to use the open-hand method for self defense. Because of my background in cognitive psychology, this instantly made sense to me for a number of reasons: it is an instinctive movement and a common reaction to sudden danger, it’s a gross motor movement that works well under high levels of stress, and potential witnesses are more likely to see you as the defender (rather than the aggressor) if your hands are open.

The ESDS instructors mentioned some other advantages as well: it’s a safer option than punching with a fist (less chance of hurting your own hand), the open-hand method will leave less visible damage on the attacker, it’s applicable in many different situations, and it will cause a bigger ‘shock’ to the brain – resulting in a bigger chance of a knockout.

They had some pretty convincing evidence on this last point, such as when they knocked someone out who was wearing a motorcycle helmet. On top of this they also made sure students felt the power of the open-hand, and I’ve seen plenty of students fall to the ground after a slap to the chest (or even the leg).

But does an open-hand slap really work better than a punch?

The experiment

Fast forward to about 8 years later, I now had a force meter to compare the impact of an open-hand slap to a punch with a closed-fist. After dozens of tests, I consistently found that the open-hand slap generated higher levels of force. The actual angle of attack (e.g. hook or straight punch) didn’t matter: the open-hand slap came out on top every time.

You can see the result of one of the tests online: https://youtu.be/RkNRU8N2jcU

I recently repeated the experiment to determine the usefulness of open-hand strikes in MMA, and even with MMA gloves the open-hand slaps generated more force: https://youtu.be/YY2qPzR9Pfo

Discussion

So, why did the open-hand slaps generate more force? Well, this mostly has to do with the difference in surface area.

A strike with a fist has a much smaller surface area than a slap with an open-hand. As a result, a strike with a fist is much more likely to break a nose or jaw. Now at first glance, this ability to break bones might make it seem like the punch is generating more power – but that’s not the case. In fact, the amount of force of a punch and open-hand are pretty much the same, the difference is that the fist concentrates all the power in a small area. The small (and hard) impact area of a fist concentrates the energy of the strike into a point, but this also means that there is less energy left to impact other areas.

On the other hand, an open-hand slap will spread the force of the strike over a larger surface area. As a result, less energy will be concentrated into a point (smaller chance of leaving any visible damage on the target), and more energy is left to travel deep into the target. When striking the head, this means that an open-hand slap will put more energy into ‘shocking’ the brain, resulting in a bigger chance of a knockout.

This is measured nicely with the force meter that we used, as the sensor was placed in the back of the pad: so that only the energy of the strike that would have impacted the brain was measured.

On top of this, there is a different factor at play that the force meter cannot measure: striking a bigger surface means that more nerve endings will be hit, and as a result that the brain will receive more pain signals. Although this alone won’t knock anyone out, it might overwhelm and cause a short freeze.

Issues

I’ve repeated this test dozens of times, more than enough to say with confidence that I have generated reliable results. However, what about validity? Is this a valid way to test open-hand vs closed-fist strikes?

There are some issues that I would like to mention. First of all, most of the people that were striking the pads were well trained in both the open-hand slaps and in closed-fist punches, but perhaps they were simply better at open-hand slaps. If this is true, then the difference in force can (partially) be explained by the participants simply being more skilled at delivering open-hand strikes.

Second, none of the participants were skeptical about the open-hand method. Perhaps they unconsciously wanted the open-hand slap to do better than the closed-fist? Until some skeptics give this a try, there is no way to know for sure.

One more issue is that the force meter itself wasn’t calibrated. This means that the measured force of the strikes cannot be translated to Newtons. So although we can definitely conclude that the open-hand slaps generated more force than the punches with the closed-fist, there is unfortunately no way to know how much more powerful the open-hand slap was (this similar to temperature: 30°C is not twice as hot as 15°C).

In the future, we should re-do the experiment with a calibrated force meter, so that we know exactly how much more powerful the open-hand slap is compared to the punch with the closed-fist.

Finally, self defense is not an exact science. Although I would like to recommend everyone to use open-hand slaps for self defense, I cannot say that the open-hand method will be more suitable in every self defense situation or for every person.

More info

Curious about the Force Meter, or perhaps you’d like to build one as well? See TaidoWorld.com/Force-Meter
ESDS stands for Explosive Self Defence System, be sure to check them out!
And for those in Holland who would like to learn more about my teachings in self defense, visit ModerneZelfverdediging.nl

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Illusion of Self-Defense” A Personal Perspective from a Martial Artist – A. Kunoichi

Several mornings ago while groggily clutching my warm, comforting cup of coffee, I came across an article that jolted me awake.

It was an article concerning Kayla Harrison, an Olympian martial artist who was sexually assaulted and abused by her instructor as a teenager. In light of this, the author puts forth a challenge as to whether modern women’s self-defense courses offered by martial arts schools give sufficient, comprehensive preparation to the women enrolled in their courses.

And if not, then what is lacking in the schools’ curriculum?

Self-defense programs in general, have one singular, primary focus: to teach women, who are often viewed as a vulnerable population, to defend themselves in any number of violent scenarios. The scenarios that are rehearsed center around the presumption that a woman could be attacked suddenly by a nameless predator.

Basically, a stranger…remember “Stranger Danger” ?

Theoretical purse snatchers, being held at gunpoint or the tip of a blade, some menacing figure demanding your money and valuables.

Even worse – to be snatched into the back of a dark, unmarked van and raped, or left for dead.

Yes, this stuff happens. If you watch CNN regularly, you can’t help but notice the reports of young women who go out for a jog, only to be found hours later dead in a ditch, with visible signs of assault.

Compassionate self-defense instructors want to give their student the necessary tools to ensure that they don’t become THAT headline. It’s a noble goal, and an empowering one. I can say with some confidence that my martial arts background has given me some survival tools for the times that I must run alone, or walk through a dark parking garage to my car.

But I’m not overly cocky to think that my training is foolproof, nor will it save my ass in every possibility. Because nine times out of ten, it’s not a stranger that’s going to hurt me.

It’s going to be someone I know.
Perhaps someone I trust.
Someone I love.

I walked into a local dojo one summer when I was 22 years old, to inquire about self-defense classes. I wasn’t looking to become a badass overnight, although that would have been a pretty cool bonus.

The truth was, I walked into that dojo, having already been physically and mentally hurt.

It wasn’t by a stranger. It was my mother.

There was a story recently on the news about a 4 year old child that was found severely traumatized by police officers. When they asked the child what her name was, she simply replied, “Idiot.” She had been called idiot so many times, she had forgotten her real name.

Talk about a page out of my life.

I grew up in a house where a hard. ringing slap was not usual. Nor were drunken tirades, the phone being ripped off the wall, blinds getting shredded in her bare hands. Recounting all the names, and all the ways that left a dent in childhood, would take too long to say. Social services was called once by someone anonymous. It didn’t help. It only left me an accessible target for her rage. How dare anyone interfere with her right to parent me?

Self-defense and martial arts did not protect me from childhood abuse.
I walked into that dojo a few years too late.

But I did step onto a path that was necessary for my soul and well-being.
Because I was still hurting. And damn angry.

I couldn’t understand why the parent who raised me, was incapable of love. And why I constantly lived with the sense that my best was never enough.

My teacher saw the mess that was both abused child, and angry, confused adult. He used martial arts to tame my fury and teach me patience, to give me some small sense of self-worth.

He gave me encouragement where previously there was none.

He was 3 times my size, a gentle bear.
Because of him, I began to consider that I had some value in this world.
Or that I could be capable of something great.
And family, well..that meaning grew beyond blood and bone.

I cannot give enough credit to my first teacher, or the people and lessons learned in my time on this still-evolving path. If someone wanted to try martial arts, I would not deter anyone from doing so. It was the best decision I ever made for myself.

I lived alone during those early years, so I was anxious at the possibility of a home invasion. We did sometimes, work on “worst case scenarios”. I think I figured after the hell that passed for childhood, that the next person who tried to hurt me would be a stranger.

I miscalculated on that. Big time.
Because the next person who hurt me, was again, someone I knew and loved deeply.

Not long ago, I was in a relationship with someone within our martial arts community. The relationship moved very hard, very fast and without logical thought.

Looking back, it was a car crash waiting to happen.

He was handsome, charming, confident. He walked and moved with an assurance that I secretly envied. He could be so damn funny, passionate, and remarkably persuasive.

Perhaps too persuasive. He was blessed with a silver tongue, and would often privately boast, that he could get anyone to do anything he wanted.

That should have been a warning.

The relationship quickly took on the boundaries of dominance & submission, both psychologically and sexually. He was an intense force of nature, so naturally he emerged the dominant.

I was eager to prove myself worthy of someone’s love. That invisible scar from childhood abuse was still there, and I was starving for affection. Any affection.
Easily, I became submissive.

The relationship, through a number of twists, took a darker turn. I soon discovered that my passionate force of nature could be incredibly moody.
He showed one face in public to our friends, but something else when we were alone.
Intimacy took on a harder edge, until it was no longer true intimacy, but acts that bordered a gray line between pain and pleasure.

He ended our relationship to pursue someone else. But he decided that he wanted to keep our dominant/submissive sexual relationship, even as he pursued this new relationship.

He was maddenly, charmingly persuasive in why this was perfectly acceptable. He outlined passages from one of Antony Cummins’ historical research novels on the bujinkan, that detailed how the shadow warriors were encouraged to have sexual relationships – the theory being that it would further strengthen their bonds should they ever have to go to battle.

In other words, you’ll happily die for the one you’re fighting alongside, if you’re also screwing them.

I recognize now that he was taking historical martial arts lore and bending it in such a way as to keep my conscience satiated and my mouth shut.

Eventually, I began falling apart under the weight of the psychological games, and my conscience.

I wanted to be deemed worthy of someone’s love, but I was sickened by the fact that we were lying and hurting someone who didn’t deserve it. It went against the code of honor and integrity that we have within our community.

Be mindful of our thoughts, our words, our actions.

I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was being used. There were many arguments and disagreements.
Be quiet, not be quiet.
End things, keep things going.

My conscience was a noose around my neck dragging me to the ocean depths, but I would still be quick to say whatever words he wanted to hear.

No, I won’t tell.

It exploded one night, in a way I never imagined, the last time I was alone with him.

A year would pass before I could even discuss what happened.
And even then, I could only detail in writing.
When I finally gathered the courage to share, I was told by a friend with sad, concerned eyes, that it was unnerving, violent, and that it reads as a sexual assault.

It’s still difficult for my mind to wrap around.
It should not exist for me, not with my background and training. But I can’t explain away the psychological ramifications.

Bouts of insomnia and terrible dreams, which I sometimes still have.
I once dreamt of him etched in stone, a beautifully carved statue that abruptly turned into a roaring monster, chasing me down into darkness.

I woke up screaming from that one.

I attempted to date, but couldn’t bear to be touched. I would visibly shake, cry and have an instinctual urge to just..run like hell. And my dates were nice guys, really.

I spent a long time in a perpetually anxious state of mind.

Rape Prevention: Paedophiles – Kelee Arrowsmith

Rape is one of the most devastating personal traumas one can experience. Many victims feel as if their lives have been shattered and that their psychological and physical privacy has been invaded. The emotional scars last for months or years and sometimes never heal.

A great deal of information is available on rape and rapists but the fact is that rape affects the younger generation far more than mature adults. In South Africa, an average of one in three women is raped before the age of twenty five. For this reason, we need to focus our education and prevention efforts on teens and pre-teens.

A large contributing factor is that we teach our children to respect other (especially older) people. This leaves them vulnerable to predators, many of which are family members or friends of the family. These predators don’t randomly choose their victims; they manipulate and test their potential prey thoroughly before making their move. Often, they chose a child or teen who is a loner or has low self esteem and they begin to “groom” them. The predator makes the child feel special by giving them little gifts and telling them secrets and once comfortable that the young person is not telling anyone they will commence the abuse.

The “touching” usually starts as a game so that if it is reported, the perpetrator simply brushes it off as a joke. The relationship becomes important to the child, which strengthens the “no tell” message that they receive from their molester.

Of course, once the young person realizes that they are in a bad situation, the predator has made them feel that they (the victim) are responsible for what has happened, which makes it even more difficult to tell anyone about the abuse.

Grooming is just one of the most common ways in which rape occurs. Once a rapist has found a way to get away with his (or her) crime, he will use the same formula again and again – there is almost never only one victim. If the rapist is found out, the family usually will chose not to expose the crime because of the shame and so the abuser simple picks another victim.

In the case of children and teens, one of the best ways to prevent them from falling prey to an abuser, is to teach your children how to be assertive and set personal boundaries. Strong personal boundaries make it very difficult for a predator. A simple way to teach a young child about personal boundaries is to tell them that we are all the boss of our own bodies and let them know that that they do not always have to accept a hug or a kiss from a relative or friend if it makes them uncomfortable. Assure them that they will not be in trouble if the friend or relative comes to tell on them.

Roll play with your child so that they know exactly what they are going to say and do. Let them know that if anyone tries to touch them in any place that they swimming costumes normally covers, that they are to come and tell you immediately.

You can also assist by scrutinizing the adults and older children that your child interacts with to make sure that their interaction is appropriate to their “job roll”. For example, a music teacher’s roll is to teach music. It is NOT their job to take your child to the movies or ice skating, remember that these predators look for kids AND adults with weak boundaries.

Instead of trying to find a “one size fits all” way of preventing rape, we need understand the various ways rapes occur and look at our individual vulnerabilities and how to mitigate the risks to which we are exposed.

Dynamic Decision Making Process – Schalk Holloway

“So when do I actually hit him?”

This is a question I frequently get in training environments or events we host. The reason for this is that all of our training includes a situational, or scenario, component. We role play different types of situations more prevalent within our context. We then teach our “aggressors” how to escalate the situation they’re role playing realistically. This however always leads to someone wondering at which point they should now react. This sounds easier than it actually is. Due to the inherent dynamism in potentially violent encounters, or even in verbal confrontations and conflicts, it is difficult to have catch all answer to this problem. In retrospect we can say that then or there was the perfect time to react. Whilst there it’s not always so clear. Also, if we think about training, our role as provider is to help others to think right, we need to teach them to evaluate for themselves when they should react.

This article will help you to explore, and hopefully better equip you to train yourself and others on, some the dynamics involved in preparing yourself to respond effectively in developing situations. It is going to do so through helping you to understand the importance of being able to make decisions dynamically as a situation develops. It will also delve into some of the challenges this progressive decision making faces and give you some tips on how to train it.

Just Right Decisions – Timing and Force

In self defense specifically, as in boundary enforcement (Just Right Boundary Enforcement, Erik Kondo), there is what we would call a Just Right Response. Just right specifically in terms of the timing of the response as well as the amount of force used in the response.

In terms of timing it’s easy to understand that responding either too early or too late can have negative consequences. If I respond too early I lose my ability to legally justify the response because it essentially means that I responded before there was a valid Confirmed Threat Indicator (as opposed to only a Potential Threat Indicator). If I respond too late it means that I have just lost initiative. I’ve now been forced into a reactive pattern. There are quite a few negative consequences here. First of all, we are much less effective when we are responding as our decision making ability is greatly hampered by all of the incoming data. Second, losing initiative means that I now stand the chance of being injured first, which could lead to serious complications and even death.

In terms of the amount of force that we use there’s also a just right decision that needs to made. Using too little force could mean that my response is ineffectual. This has a couple of negative consequences of which I’ll highlight two. First, there’s a psychological factor involved for both parties. I know I responded ineffectual and this could hamper my confidence going forward. He knows it too and this could fuel his confidence. Secondly, when we think about the physical side of a confrontation, too little force could once again bring us back to being injured and all of the bad stuff included there. Using too much force we now get faced with both the emotional and legal fallout that will follow. From experience I always tell others, whether you hurt somebody for good, whether you hurt them for bad, whether you used just enough or too much force, at some stage it comes back to haunt you. You never want to be the guy that puts his head down at night and wonders whether you were justified in severely hurting or killing another human being. If you can’t answer that question with a good conscience you have some problems on the way.

So our goal is to find a Just Right Response. Under extremely dynamic situations. This is what Progressive Decision Making Ability is about. It’s about training the ability to make those decisions effectively under pressure.

Progressive Decision Making

Progressive decision making is the discipline and art of arranging signals and triggers to support us in making Just Right Responses.

We arrange Signals, Threats and Responses like this. The Signals are all the indicators that a person or persons (or situation) is a potential or a confirmed threat. A Trigger is the imaginary line in the sand. It is the moment at which I feel I now have to respond. The Response is the action that I take when triggered. A Response can be Too Much or Too Little, Too Soon or Too Late, as already discussed. The goal though is to be able to pick up on signals, select or have pre selected triggers in place, so that we can set up a Just Right Response.

Without spending too much time Boyd’s OODA loop model, one large take-away is the fact that decision precedes action. When we are able to make a specific decision about something we set ourselves up to take action more in line with our preferred outcome. Our Triggers are these decisions because essentially that’s what a line in the sand is. A visual or conceptual representation of a decision. Procrastination is not the lack of action – it’s the lack of deciding to act. In self defense, or in most types of confrontation or conflict, procrastination frequently leads to timing related consequences. For now it’s important to understand that I need to make decisions when in a hostile encounter. The decisions are mostly IF THEN clauses. IF person or persons A does this THEN I do that.

Progressive Decision Making is the ability to make those decisions as the incoming data develops.

For example. I’m sitting in a pub having a beer. A guy comes in through the door. His demeanor is subtly aggressive. I make a decision (trigger) that “if he gets really loud, demanding or confrontational with anyone (signals) I’m flagging him as a potential threat (response)”. He orders a beer and starts talking to another guy next to him at the bar. He systematically gets louder and more confrontational. I now flag him as a potential threat. Due to many factors however he’s not really a potential threat to me. However, I make the decision (trigger) that “if he comes over and starts talking with me (signal) I will flag him as a potential threat to me (response).” Low and behold, he catches my eye and over he comes. I converse with him congenially but I make a decision (trigger) that (for example) “if he gets argumentative (signal) I’ll excuse myself and leave (response).” Surely he does become argumentative and I congenially excuse myself and get ready to leave. I make two last decisions (triggers), one, “if he insults me I will continue to leave,” but two, “if he touches me I will hit him so hard that his head will smack the floor before his feet lift from it.”

This is a process that most of us go through without being aware that we are doing so. The challenge however is that if you are not experienced or trained in these matters you either miss the signals or you don’t set the triggers. Failure in either of these leads to inadequate responses.

Relativistic Nature of of Triggers

It is important to understand that there are some factors that should influence the selection of triggers. These factors are based on physical attributes, training and experience background, and situational development.

First of all remember, signals are what the other party is displaying, triggers are your own personal lines in the sand.

1. Physical Attributes

My wife has been struggling with one of her knees for a couple of years now. She struggles to run fast as she experiences a lot of pain. This means, that any response that is geared towards escaping or leaving an area fast, will be problematic for her. This isn’t necessarily a crisis – it just means that her trigger or her line in the sand needs to be a bit further away from the critical incident than, say, mine has to be.

For example, both of us are in a shopping centre, we pick up aggressive and demanding signals from a guy at one of the fast food outlets’ paypoints. There are some other signals as well. Aggressive guy is dressed anomalous, it’s warm weather but he has a jacket on. The cashier is glancing at his waist the whole time looking nervous. We cannot see if he’s holding something there and we cannot hear what’s happening. It could be a robbery or it could be an argument over a till slip he’s holding. The signals are the same for both of us. However, a trigger for me might be “if I see him pull a gun I’m out of here.” A trigger for her might be further from such a critical incident. It might be “if he starts yelling or someone screams I’m out of here.”

In this way your physical attributes like strength, athleticism, ease of communication, fitness and so forth might influence your own personal triggers.

2. Training and Experience

Let’s imagine that we’re in a situation that, if it evolves into a full blown physical encounter, it will remain within the sphere of hand to hand combat. Ie. No chance of weapons. I’m standing at the bar ordering a drink. All of a sudden the guy next to me looks towards me and shouts “hey man, what’s your problem?” I did not do anything to him. I didn’t touch him, bump him, look at him, spill my drink on him, engage with anyone in his party in any way. So as far as I’m concerned the signals he’s giving off is that he’s looking for a fight.

I attempt to de-escalate the situation verbally. Whilst doing so I start to make my IF THEN decisions. I set my triggers. Here’s the problem though. Let’s imagine I’m 5’6” and he’s about 6’6”. If I have no relevant training I might decide “if he shifts his stance to face me I’m out of here.” If I have some training I might use the same trigger but respond “then I’m going to punch him.” If I’m really well trained and experienced my response can be “then I’m subtly going to match his footwork, set up the range so it works in my favor, get my hands into a good position, start to pick the best attack vector, and continue to try and de-escalate.”

Training and experience essentially allows us to come closer to the critical incident before we act. It also gives us more options in terms of how we can act. Training and experience, in legal expectations as well as in my own personal opinion, also leave us with the responsibility to attempt to have a more positive impact in a peaceful resolution to the situation.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

This is the dynamic of how close or far we, as an individual, HAVE TO or EXPERIENCE WE HAVE TO set our triggers to the actual critical incident. It is easier and less complex to set up triggers and responses very far from the critical incident. Certain individuals though, either through choice, sense of responsibility, or employment expectations, are required to get really really close, even INTO, the critical incident. Think predators, law enforcement, military, security professional, certain bystanders, paramedic and so forth.

In all three of these subcategories it becomes clear that triggers are sometimes very subjective by nature.

You can’t run away – Kelee Arrowsmith

You can run, but you can’t get away from crime. Everyone wants to leave South Africa because of crime. Not me.
Everyone tells you what you ALREADY KNOW; that violent crime is UP and that you need to be aware. You tell your kids “be careful”, but what does that mean? You are telling them what they already know. How about telling them HOW to be careful?
That’s the tough part.

Because of the HUGE international problem with drugs, crime is becoming a part of life worldwide. While I was in France last year (presenting a workshop on saving yourself in violent crime situations), a lady was hijacked, yes HIJACKED right outside the army barracks in Rennes (Western France). She was hijacked and raped.

How safe are you?
How safe is your family?
What is the cost of keeping them safe?

Let me give you clue about the cost of staying safe. It pales in comparison to the cost of being the victim of violent crime. The cost of crime is not only the total amount you have to spend on replacing the physical items that you loose; a much higher cost is the mental anguish that you and your family will suffer. This emotional distress continues long after the cost of the missing items has faded. The REAL cost of crime cannot be measured in money.
When it comes to their safety, people fit into 3 main categories:

I can take care of myself. You don’t need to read any further, you’ve got it covered.
2. What crime? See number 1.
3. I know there is crime but there is so much and it is so varied, I don’t know what to do. Read on.

People often say that they know all about crime. They see it on the TV, in the papers and on the internet. Reading about the various crimes that are perpetrated does help us to prepare against the bad guys to a certain degree and it is very important to stay up to date with the latest criminal trends.

The problem is that we are mostly learning from the victims about how to protect ourselves, after the crime has happened, and that means that the best we can hope for is that the crime happens to someone else first, so that we can be prepared for it (maybe!).

It is imperative to understand that the bad guys are constantly developing new ways to separate us from our hard earned money/car, etc., and that they are individuals and as such, there are thousands of new and ingenious schemes developed every day. So trying to play catch-up only makes us feel more helpless.

HERE’S A WAKE UP CALL: Prevention is the best way, the easiest way, and the least expensive way. By prevention, I don’t mean run away or hide away in a castle. You still have to go to work. You still have to interact with the world.

Staying safe is not about how expensive your alarm system is or how good the security at work is. You need to make safety a part of your life. Everyday. Everywhere. All the time. Staying safe is an ongoing, iterative project that needs to be planned (together with your family), tested (a plan that is not tested is only a theory) and put into production (made part of your life).

Think you can make safety a part of your life? In my opinion, you have no choice.

Universal Principles of the Russian Martial Art – Mikhail Didenko

The Russian Martial Art is based not on techniques, but on the so-called principles. A principle is a versatile formula, a matrix, and a general rule that can be used not only in combat situations, but also in many other diverse encounters. Principles are algorithms that are ready to use. More than this, principles develop our independent thinking whereby a person or practitioner evolves into a leader. However, this is not an occasion, but a target of the Russian martial art. To win a fight, your style must be unpredictable. You can achieve this by deploying principles that make your mind and movement free. In addition, you can find a way out of any situation not only because the principles are universal, but also because any person is taught that life is a fight in and of itself.

This article explains how to simplify a structure or a process and use this knowledge in self-defense, project promotion, negotiations or even carpentry.

The general principle is to prefer a simple structure over a complicated one and to get rid of any mediators.

For example, try to punch with a palm heel instead of a fist. It makes your strikes safer for you, because you cannot hurt your wrist or metacarpal bones while fighting. Our fists (ossa metacarpi) are too fragile. In the anthropological sense a human being is not supposed to punch, our hands are designed for grabbing things and doing a million of complicated operations. Thus, the metacarpal bones are thin and breakable, because if the bones were solid, we couldn’t use our hands the way we do it now. Writing, molding or platting would have been impossible. So, if you fight in a street and you have damaged your fist against somebody’s forehead, it makes you unable to use this hand for some. But if we exclude the fist and hit with the palm heel you we cannot hurt our hand; thus, we can win. The fist is an unnecessary link here. Our hand consists of three major joints: a wrist, an elbow, a shoulder – 3 joints altogether. Eliminating the fist and immobilizing one joint makes the whole “system” more reliable, as we all know that complicated systems are easier to be brought out of operation or broken.

Before: the wrist (1st link) – the elbow (2nd link) – the shoulder (3rd link).

Now: the elbow (1st link) – the shoulder (2nd link).

Some people study karate, wushu and they are trying to harden their arms, but you cannot cheat the Mother Nature. It would take you at least five years to achieve good conditioning and still nobody could guarantee that you wouldn’t break your hand against somebody’s skull. Palm strikes are not so swift, but they are safe. It can be crucial if we are talking about a street fight where you need to deal with multiple attackers. When we slip and fall down we a support with palms, because we are not afraid to hurt them. At the same time a lot of people are afraid that they can hurt fingers, knuckles or metacarpal bones in a street fight, especially if they have hurt them before. In the Russian Special Forces systems they don’t strike with knuckles by another reason. For example you hurt your arm against your enemy’s helmet, and then your hand turns into “a bulb”, or your index finger is broken. That’s it as you cannot pull a trigger, you cannot use your gun.

Palm strikes are easy to use in darkness, or when you are blinded by blood, or sand, whatever. We can feel where the opponent’s face is when we stand nearby. If we can touch the opponent’s arm, we can “calculate” the location of their face. We don’t need to aim to hit the chin directly. We can smash the face and it hurts anyway. If we punch with a closed fist, we should deliver the direct hit, otherwise the punch is useless and if we talk about real self-defense, one second can be vital.

Historically fist punches were used in the traditional fights which were a rite, a symbol of the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, Day and Night, Spring and Winter, For example, fights during fertility fests known among Slavic nations. Later these sacred symbolic fights evolved to sports, like boxing or traditional forms of fist fighting. Such a form of fight has never been used for self-defense. Two guys from one village could fight each other, but they couldn’t use real combat techniques, because they could harm each other seriously, and that would not be accepted, as they were from one clan, one community.

There were fewer people in the Middle Ages and any member of a community was appreciated, especially the ones who could fight. At the same time people wanted to take it out on somebody they had a conflict with and fist fighting was a “safe” way to do it. Also, it was a “safe” way in the medieval Russia to train youngsters (although sometimes people died in such fights). However, they didn’t use it in real fights, when your life was a prize. In a real combat you’d better use other techniques, like a low blow to a groin, which is not permitted in boxing. It won’t be correct to say that boxing or fist-fighting are useless in a street fight. Many times in my life a couple of boxing punches were enough for an opponent, but I had other techniques in my stock like knee strikes, throws, and so on and could help myself if the punch would miss the target.

Yes, masters study all techniques including fist-fighting and palm strikes, but we talk about a usual self-defense situation, and a usual person involved in. It’s better to use palm strikes, because they are effective, simple and do not take long time to learn.

Now let’s progress and talk about the business application of this principle. If you want to present your project to someone (e.g. a potential investor) you’d better to evade dealing with their deputies or assistants, because they are an unnecessary link here. They can steal or misinterpret the conception you want to offer. Try to avoid mediators where possible as they can make it worse sometimes. Communicate directly. Seek the unnecessary links in any system you deal with. The lesser joints, the better.

There is one Russian children’s game which is called “The broken telephone”. Rules are the following: kids sit together in a row and the first one whispers a phrase to his or her closest neighbor. The neighbor transmits the phrase to the next kid, until the last one gets it, and then the last kid should tell it out loud. Usually the phrase is so corrupted due to whisper, that it causes common laughter. This game is a perfect illustration of this principle.

My Story:

Once I decided to organize a Russian fist-fighting group in a college belonging to Russian Orthodox church… They already had some classes there, but I had some new ideas (some exercises and techniques they didn’t know). Instead of talking to the “big boss” I decided to talk to one of his subordinate teachers, who was younger. I thought we could communicate better.

After our conversation he told me he would call me. But he never did. I called him myself to find whether he passed my suggestions to the main coach. The answer was negative. However, I found out through one of my teenager “spies” in his group that he started to use my ideas without notifying me. When I called him again and told him I knew it he was astonished and had nothing to say. I learned the lesson.

After that case I’ve always contacted to the “big boss” directly – when I’ve first met Mikhail Ryabko, I asked his personal phone number to have a possibility to contact him directly.

Let’s see how it works here:

You (1st link) – an assistant (2nd link) – a boss (3rd link).

Number two is an unwanted mediator, a dangerous barrier. They can do anything – misunderstand your idea or even borrow it.

We can also add one more usual unnecessary link – a receptionist. So, the “system” now is even more unreliable:

you (1st link) – a receptionist (2nd link) – an assistant (3rd link) – a boss (4th link).

As we’re all humans we can say that the receptionist might forget about your message. It happens, doesn’t it?

The perfect “system” is next: you (1st link) – a boss (2nd link). Without a hitch.

“A Spanish speaking bandit held up a bank in Tucson. The sheriff and his deputy chased him. When they captured him, and the sheriff, who couldn’t speak Spanish, asked him where he’d hidden the money. “No sé nada (I know nothing),” he replied. The sheriff put a gun to the bandit’s head and said to his bilingual deputy: “Tell him that if he doesn’t tell us where the money is right now, I’ll blow his brains out.” Upon receiving the translation, the bandit became very animated. “¡Ya me acuerdo! Tienen que caminar tres cuadras hasta ese gran arbol: allí está el dinero.” (I remember now! You should go three blocks to that big tree, the money is there)

The sheriff leaned forward. “Yeah? Well..?” The deputy replied: “He says he wants to die like a man.”

The translator was the excessive link in this story. If the gangster knew English, he could talk directly to the sheriff and save his life.

The same principle also works in communication between friends. If you want to piece up a quarrel with somebody, you’d better not involve any negotiators. It seems to us that everybody thinks like we do, but in fact everyone is a different Universe and such a negotiator can make things worse.

At the same time if you are a mediator of such a kind you should not to be excluded. For example you have some ties with a person who has enough money, and then another friend offers you to unite to make a project together and to introduce him or her to the potential sponsor. So you should remember that afterwards your friend can think that you are the “unnecessary link.” It’s better to keep the information and never disclose your contacts, and to be useful.

You can use this principle in carpeting, making structures of wood. You can use it in welding, in construction. It depends on what you need: beauty or reliability. A complicated structure is often not reliable; simple structures provide more endurance.

You can use it just everywhere, including establishing a company or forming your team. For example, if there are too many ” links between a person who takes decisions and a staff member in your company, it might not be reasonable. Say, there are some troubles at the staff level. The staff member addresses his or her superiors, they pass it on, and finally the information is on the top-manager’s table. What if it’s too late? What if the speed of transmitting the information is too slow? And vice a versa – even if the top-manager solved the issue and took the right decision, it would take some time to be communicated to staff. Time loss results in performance or business opportunity loss. Sure, if your company is global such links are inevitable, still it’s never late to think how you can eliminate the extra “buffers”.

The same method worked at battlefields since the ancient Romans – smaller, but well-trained squads with good interaction defeated large, but disconnected barbarian armies where communication between the units was hard and insufficient.

So, from the battlefields of the past to the modern office the same principle applies: simplify what you do and try to deliver it direct, whether it’s a strike or a business proposal. Polishing this skill takes certain time and requires a good level of observance, but the results will be beneficial.

References

‘Boxer’s Fracture (Metacarpal Neck)’ by Clifford R. Wheeless, III, MD
http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/boxers_fracture_metacarpal_neck_1, ‘Boxer’s Fracture’ by Manuel Hernandez, MD http://www.emedicinehealth.com/boxers_fracture/article_em.htm
”We may conclude, then, that, if this is the better way, and if Nature always does the best she can in the circumstances, it is not true to say that man is the most intelligent animal because he possesses hands, but he has hands because he is the most intelligent animal. We should expect the most intelligent to be able to employ the greatest number of instruments to good purpose; now the hand would appear to be not one single instrument but many; it is, as it were, an instrument for instruments. Thus it is to that animal which has the capacity to acquire the greatest number of arts that nature has given the most useful of instruments, namely the hand”, Aristotle, PA IV, 10, 687a15-23.
T. Agapkina, ”The Myth and Poetic Bases of the Slavic National Calendar” (Indrik, 2002), pages 175, 176
“In spite of those strict rules combats sometimes had deplorable results: fighters could get permanent injuries or even die. – See more at: http://russia-ic.com/culture_art/traditions/1078#.VjJpWvnhDNM”http://russia-ic.com/culture_art/traditions/1078#.VjJpWvnhDNM

Those Old People and their “easy” lives. – Bob Davis

The brief ramble below is an unedited Facebook post I made a short while after the UK’s recent E.U. Referendum (Brexit). It doesn’t pertain to the issues of the referendum itself but more to a (one of many) posts blaming the “older” generation for destroying the future of the young who are already having to “struggle so badly” to get on in life in the modern world.

I know lot of this may be U.K. centric but from what I read I suspect the generational attitudes demonstrated are reasonably consistent in pretty much all of the Western world. I also understand that, like the young gentleman who was pointing the finger in the first place, I am making some sweeping generalisations here about the younger generation but, as has been said before, “Sweeping generalisations exist for a reason!”

A few of the things said were intended to be tongue in cheek (although none the less true for that) but the emoticons have been removed for the printed page.

The original complaint was based upon a poll published breaking down the leave/remain vote by age group and showing clearly that the older you were the more likely you were to have voted to leave the E.U.. What the complainant failed to take note of (or mention by the way) was another poll that showed, with an overall U.K. wide voter turnout of 72% that only 36% of 18-25 year olds actually bothered to vote at all (which says a lot in itself I think), hardly a surprise then that the views of the older generation held sway.

Enjoy.

—————————————————————————————————————-

This cropped up during a finger pointing session on the EU earlier by some “young people” but I thought it’d be good to de-couple this from that emotive subject (and start another one)

The comment was along the lines of us “old people” once again having shat* on the younger generation despite us having had it so good (in our time) with our “free education” and “affordable housing”.

My story is nothing special but it may be reasonably typical of the time so for what it’s worth here it is.

I left school in 1974 at the age of 16 and entered the workplace (I know, by modern standards that makes me a failure and a no hoper). This wasn’t due to lack of options but a personal choice. I left with 10 ‘O’ level passes (2 of which I took a year early), this was in the days when 4 passes was considered a real success (because at the time it was an exam system you could actually fail at).

I could have stayed and done ‘A’ levels and gone on to university and this was in the days when maybe only 1 in a hundred had that chance. However, I didn’t have a goal that would be served by further education i.e. I was of the opinion that it made sense to go to University IF you had something you wanted to do rather that spending an extra 5 years in education because “I don’t know what I want to do”! (and, of course it’ll be a “bit of a laugh”).

Now the reality is the choice was full time education or work, because I was in the work place for those 5 years I was earning a wage that I wouldn’t have done had I stayed in school. The upshot of this being in current terms that my “free” education would have cost me the current equivalent of £90-100k (assuming I hadn’t wasted another potential £20k+ on taking a gap year). I did go into further education but did it at technical college evening classes whilst working for a living!
(Just an aside, does a potential extra £120k sound like a good step onto the property ladder? just a thought)

I bought my 1st house in 1980, when interest rates on a mortgage were running at 16.5%. If you take my mortgage payments and the money I had to repay for having borrowed elsewhere to top up the deposit that accounted for approximately 75% of my income. That left me the remaining 25% to pay for food, household bills and running a car (so I could get to work and back). I used to be in the situation of putting petrol in the car 2ltrs at a time, because that was all the money I had, in the hope that it would get me to work and back until the next payday. I used to buy (when I was feeling particularly flush**) a 1kg factory farmed chicken for a £1, that would be a roast dinner for 2 days, a curry or pie from the scrapings for another 2 days and then stock for soup or gravy.

I didn’t have a piece of furniture that wasn’t something someone else was throwing out for probably the first 10 years of my married life. Holidays consisted of going to live with my parents for a week a couple of times a year.

Having got married at 22 and having 2 children to raise (both of whom went to Uni BTW) I would estimate that I first got to the stage where I had “disposable” income at around age 40 and maybe “comfortable” by the age of 50.

What I didn’t have was the latest iPhone, or Netflix, or a Snowboarding holiday and 2 weeks in Thailand with my mates each year, I didn’t have £20-40k to spend on a wedding because “it’s my special day”, I didn’t have the dilemma of “should we send out for pizza again tonight?” I didn’t have to have a TV in the bedroom and one in the kitchen, or a new sofa every 3 years etc.. etc…

What I also didn’t have was the mentality that I should be able to have everything I wanted whenever I wanted it and if I couldn’t then it just “wasn’t fair”, instead I worked diligently for the stuff I’ve got and improved my lifestyle as and when I could afford it (and I still know I had it a damn site easier than my parents or grandparents did!).

But there, that’s what happens when you come from the generation that “had it all so easy” and don’t understand how the young ‘uns struggle these days

Of course, I’m also about to become a burden on society drawing a pension (that I’ve paid into for the last 42 years) and not doing the decent thing and dying within 6 months of retirement like my grandfather’s generation.

Just sayin’

*Shat – colloquial English, past tense, “to have shit upon”
** Feeling flush – to have spare cash

ADRENALINE AND FIGHTING! TO SELL A CURE? YOU NEED A POISON. – Hock Hochheim

In Vietnam, an average “bungle in the jungle” tour of duty lasted 12 months, and one year is still the common trip length in many overseas situations. There were studies written on this and the Nam subject. The studies broke the 12 month Nam tour down into three effectiveness periods. The first period of approximately 4 months, the classic “FNG” (commonly known as the “fucking new guy”) was considered to be a rookie, new and rather worthless. The next four month period was his best as he slipped into the educated, operating groove, was properly alert and reasonably experienced. And the last few months were said to be his downhill slide! “Worst?” Because he was getting “too use” to the danger, less alert and more complacent.

In general, the average troop was at first – a little too scared and inexperienced. Second, in the groove. Then, third not scared enough. What does this have to do with adrenaline you ask? A lot. Adrenaline and fear factors into each of those periods and the overall assessment. Stand by.

To sell a cure? You first need a good, scary poison. Adrenaline has become that poison, a boogeyman in martial training the last three decades. The very term itself – adrenaline is a bit of a catch-phrase for several, chemical hormones. It would be hard for me to pinpoint when the craze happened or who did the very first smear campaign. But, some people back then, must have read these and other reports, and saw an opportunity to sell martial training from a different marketing, angle. Who? In general, it was the first wave of these so-called, reality-based, self-defense, (RBSD – a redundant term I still dislike) people with their then, newer and cooler programs.

Amongst this crowd, they preached that every hesitation or false step, every human error, every problem a person had small or big, whether they were ambushed or not, came as a result of the evil adrenaline, robbing your vision, your hearing, your ability to think, act and perform. Adrenaline they claim, made you a big, slow, numb, gross motor dummy, pooping and peeing in your pants, etc. with very “boo,” This concept, this pitch was used to dumb-down training, dumb-down expectations, lower achievements and programs to a barest minimum…and sell them. Quicker is better because all people are reduced to babbling idiots in fights anyway.

So yes, the first wave of the adrenaline wonks appeared on the scene about two, almost three decades ago. They came at you hard, with the “real deal,” “insider’ sales pitch and a “holier-than-thou” smell.

“Step right up ladies and gentleman and see the wonders of human biology destroy your chance to survive any encounter. But Wait! Wait! Right here in my hand is this elixir. The cure. If you adopt my form of training you will survive. Drink my potion, you will overcome this Frankenstein and fight off your enemies with a new found confidence and skill.”

To sell a universal cure? You need a universal poison. That poison was adrenaline. But is adrenaline really such a poison? Ask any number of doctors, like Dr. Veronique Mead for one. “The adrenaline response has a number of very specific effects aimed at maximizing survival, mediated by circulating epinephrine and cortisol (Braunwald et al., 2001). These effects include a state of heightened alertness, increased energy with which to meet a potentially difficult situation, and augmented muscle strength (Ganong, 2001). In preparation for battle, chemicals are released into the blood to facilitate clotting, and blood vessels in the skin are constricted to prevent heavy blood loss in the event of wounding (Ganong, 2001). Similarly, blood pressure and heart rate increase and the kidneys retain water, all in support of tissue perfusion and the maintenance of fluid volume in the event of sweating or blood loss (Ganong, 2001). In addition, the spleen deposits red blood cells into the blood stream in order to increase oxygen delivery to muscles (Juhan, 1998), and pupils dilate to let more light into the eyes in order to increase visual acuity (Ganong, 2001).”

Okay! Got that? Quite medical. All of this got screwed around to the negative. “Zero-to-sixty” shocks can be negative, sure, but zero-to-sixty somehow became the standard definition. Also, people have misconstrued terms. Audio exclusion, for example, doesn’t mean “losing all hearing,” or “going deaf.” It can mean (and technically does mean ) “focused” hearing, or tuning out distractions. Same thing with vision. When you focus in on the TV set you are not seeing the pine tree plant in the corner of the room. The same thing in a gunfight. When you focus in on the gunman or the gun in his hand, you fail to see the garbage can on the street corner. That does not mean adrenaline is robbing your vision, or stealing your hearing.

Long term, like an overall tour of duty, or short term like a very sudden, surprise blast of activity, if you are over-adrenalized, your performance may not be so good, such as the new, green soldier. If you are reasonably adrenalized, your performance is peaked, and if you are under adrenalized, your performance might be less than hoped for. This below chart comes right out of sports performance textbooks. Performance trainers and coaches have long understood the relationship between what they have called “sports arousal” (adrenaline) and the experience of the athlete.

In this physical performance chart prepared by professional sports trainers Daniel Landers and Stephen Boutcher If someone is barely aroused, he is barely adrenalized and not at all stimulated by much adrenaline, if any? He is not excited enough to benefit from the adrenaline boost. Nor should all the proposed ill-effects that naysayers attribute to adrenaline be present. So, you cannot blame adrenaline for actions of the under-aroused. If he screws up? He’s on his own. All the proposed negative effects of adrenaline really occur at the very far end of the curve, when the person might suffer from a high, “over” stimulus, matched with a host of other factors too, like physical health and situational factors. In fact, in this whole continuum, poor performance and high over-arousal constitute a small, extreme part of this bell-curve chart that not everyone reaches.

This chart above will apply to police work, as well as sports, or any dangerous endeavor. We eventually get complacent. We get lazy. We get careless. By understanding both charts, the short term and the long term, an understanding and a training model develops. It is largely about desensitization. First it’s good. Then it’s bad. In the beginning, you get this best only through experience and then second through repetition training in a realistic setting. But you cannot get too desensitized.

“In the beginning, it is all about desensitization. First it’s good. Then, it’s bad. You get this best through experience and then through realistic repetition training. But you cannot get too desensitized!”

It is scientifically clear that performance is best when a subject is aroused than not aroused, and best when he is moderately adrenalized/aroused, the center of this bell curve. This is true of my own personal experience. I have never felt more alive and more alert, and more clear thinking in many, if not most of my dangerous police times. Being adequately nervous is a good thing. They once asked Frank Sinatra when in his 80s, if he still got nervous when stepping out on a stage after six decades of performing. He answered, “of course I do. I need to be nervous.” Of those dangerous and, or challenging moments in policing? I miss them greatly. I miss them the most.

Poor performance may occur from a host of specific reasons. Pain. Surprise. Confusion. Shock. Ambush. Exhaustion. Anxiety in the long term. Emotional rather than intellectual decision making. Distraction…., a whole host of short-term and long term wear and tear-down of a “tour of duty.” All situational reasons that may interfere with action. NOT JUST ADRENALINE.

NOT ALWAYS ADRENALINE. To lump all performance problems into one cause is to do a disservice to training doctrine. Once you recognize this truth, you can treat the real, individual poisons. A police officer may not think clearly just because she’s worked a double shift. A soldier may freeze just because he was cleverly ambushed. A citizen may not put their key in the door of their home fast enough when being stalked, not because of adrenaline, but because they have simply never practiced putting their key in their door very fast. You may not reload your gun fast enough simply because you haven’t practiced doing it on the ground, sideways and in the mud, as well as fast. It’s different. Doing things differently.

For myself, and I know for others too, it is also a “zero-to-sixty” issue. How dull and unprepared were you, the very few seconds right before to you were confronted with a shock or action? Zero-to-sixty responses are tough. I have always done best when I have been a stage or level of being “half-adrenalized,” for lack of a better description. This 1/2 stage invokes other topics like awareness and breathing and things so long, we shouldn’t cover them in this essay.

Here’s an example or a “twenty, or thirty-to-sixty” situation. Racer Tom Rockwell said, “When I raced motorcycles the adrenaline would start to flow on Wednesday for a Sunday afternoon race. What that meant on the track was that I had all the time in the world to make split second decisions when things went south. Your whole life doesn’t flash before your eyes; it just seems like there’s time to review it all.”

To best prepare for the race tracks of life? Use the who, what, where, when, how and why of life, use the latest intelligence to construct the problem scenario. Dissect what might happen. Use experience and research, and repetition training to explore the most probable occurrences on down to the least probable. This is the reverse engineering I have talked about for the last three decades. One of our oldest mottoes is “fighting first, systems second.” (And as Einstein said, “keep it simple, but not too simple!” And what was simple to Albert, baffles the rest of us. Simple is a relative term. Need I repeat that? Simple, is a relative term to you and your capabilities, stressed out or not.)

Training will help, but that’s not all – “Culture, upbringing and environmental conditions will wire the frontal lobe in a unique pattern that determine can individual’s response to extreme stress,” says Dr. Kenneth Kamler, author of Surviving the Extremes.