This group has been designated for adults age 18 or older. Please sign in and confirm your date of birth in your profile so we can verify your eligibility. You may opt to make your date of birth private.
Rory Miller's Blog, page 21
April 15, 2013
London Debrief
That's London, Ontario. In Canada. Not the Uk one.
It's been busy.
Came in exhausted on the fourth. Had to wait at Customs. Seems I left a pamphlet from the "Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network" in my bag. Got some questions from the Canadian Border Service. That was the first Thursday.
Friday-- Walks, explore and settle in, then an evening class at the local BJJ school. Did a little dirty rolling. Had to take it easy. Still in the big knee brace, still pre-surgery... but I love playing.
Saturday: Day One of the regular seminar, Intro to Violence. Usual stuff-- the three long-assed-talks; fighting to the goal; efficient movement; learning to see... That stuff. Didn't go into the usual detail on Power Generation because I wanted to get to counter assault, so only structure and stealing. Didn't get into twitch power. Other cool thing--when I was demonstrating blindfolded infighting, they sent two in on me. Wish I had film of that. Then conversation and narghila at Crazy Joe's.
Sunday: Day Two. In the cabinet making shop again, but with a little twist. Chris had a room they were tearing down so we were able to do the mass brawls without worrying about structural damage. The go signal was throwing one of the students through the dry wall.
This brings up something. I like training hard, fast and with intensity, but don't do so in a seminar format. Seminars I focus on intensity. Chris said that some of the people who didn't show seemed afraid it would be a 'slugfest.' I don't see it. Injury rate is very low. But that we do play in dangerous environments, and do drill with mass brawls and blindfolded infighting-- there's definitely a perception there. Most people aren't ready to hear "You will be thrown through walls" and "It's really safe."
Monday: Day off. Writing and catch-up on correspondence.
Tuesday: Conflict Communications in the morning and another Dirty Rolling session with the London BJJ club in the evening.
Wednesday: ConCom in the morning. Then did an evening class for a local karate club. Then did some boxing. Kick boxing, technically, but I was in a knee brace, so I was just boxing. This was stupid, dumb, I know what you're gonna say. But it was a blast. I really miss playing with big skilled guys who are into contact.
Thursday: ConCom
Friday: ConCom. Then fencing. Now, fencing may be the worst possible thing for my knee, so I decided left hand only, no footwork.
Used my right hand some. And a little footwork (it's not something you can just turn off, evidently). Again, fun and again, clearly I'm not merely a martial artist, I'm a junkie. Addicts.
Saturday and Sunday: Logic of Violence. This seminar is growing and getting more powerful. Strangely, a couple of people who were worried about the physical aspects of Intro showed up to this since it was mostly verbal were affected at a deep emotional level. And, from a SD viewpoint, that's valid. Self-defense is far more difficult emotionally than physically. The mechanics, in other words, are simpler and for most people easier than the will aspects.
Which brings us to today. Quiet. Lunch with Steve, the head instructor at Twin Mountains (who got two gold medals in Malaysia-- congrats.) Otherwise, read and vegetate.
So 13 sessions in a little over a week. I'm a little tired. I'll get back on my regular writing schedule soon.
It's been busy.
Came in exhausted on the fourth. Had to wait at Customs. Seems I left a pamphlet from the "Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network" in my bag. Got some questions from the Canadian Border Service. That was the first Thursday.
Friday-- Walks, explore and settle in, then an evening class at the local BJJ school. Did a little dirty rolling. Had to take it easy. Still in the big knee brace, still pre-surgery... but I love playing.
Saturday: Day One of the regular seminar, Intro to Violence. Usual stuff-- the three long-assed-talks; fighting to the goal; efficient movement; learning to see... That stuff. Didn't go into the usual detail on Power Generation because I wanted to get to counter assault, so only structure and stealing. Didn't get into twitch power. Other cool thing--when I was demonstrating blindfolded infighting, they sent two in on me. Wish I had film of that. Then conversation and narghila at Crazy Joe's.
Sunday: Day Two. In the cabinet making shop again, but with a little twist. Chris had a room they were tearing down so we were able to do the mass brawls without worrying about structural damage. The go signal was throwing one of the students through the dry wall.
This brings up something. I like training hard, fast and with intensity, but don't do so in a seminar format. Seminars I focus on intensity. Chris said that some of the people who didn't show seemed afraid it would be a 'slugfest.' I don't see it. Injury rate is very low. But that we do play in dangerous environments, and do drill with mass brawls and blindfolded infighting-- there's definitely a perception there. Most people aren't ready to hear "You will be thrown through walls" and "It's really safe."
Monday: Day off. Writing and catch-up on correspondence.
Tuesday: Conflict Communications in the morning and another Dirty Rolling session with the London BJJ club in the evening.
Wednesday: ConCom in the morning. Then did an evening class for a local karate club. Then did some boxing. Kick boxing, technically, but I was in a knee brace, so I was just boxing. This was stupid, dumb, I know what you're gonna say. But it was a blast. I really miss playing with big skilled guys who are into contact.
Thursday: ConCom
Friday: ConCom. Then fencing. Now, fencing may be the worst possible thing for my knee, so I decided left hand only, no footwork.
Used my right hand some. And a little footwork (it's not something you can just turn off, evidently). Again, fun and again, clearly I'm not merely a martial artist, I'm a junkie. Addicts.
Saturday and Sunday: Logic of Violence. This seminar is growing and getting more powerful. Strangely, a couple of people who were worried about the physical aspects of Intro showed up to this since it was mostly verbal were affected at a deep emotional level. And, from a SD viewpoint, that's valid. Self-defense is far more difficult emotionally than physically. The mechanics, in other words, are simpler and for most people easier than the will aspects.
Which brings us to today. Quiet. Lunch with Steve, the head instructor at Twin Mountains (who got two gold medals in Malaysia-- congrats.) Otherwise, read and vegetate.
So 13 sessions in a little over a week. I'm a little tired. I'll get back on my regular writing schedule soon.
April 8, 2013
Talent, Skill and Experience
There are three paths to being good. Being human, you can take multiple paths simultaneously. So maybe path is a really shitty metaphor here. But bear with me. And I'm not going to talk about fighting, at least not right away.
A talented photographer sees the way a camera sees. For whatever reason, the eye and mind grasp what a thing will look like cropped to picture size, can see not just the trees but the light-and-shadow play in the shape of the trees. If you have a little talent, see a little differently, you can take some good pictures.
A skilled photographer knows his equipment. He knows what to do with all the little dials and how to sometimes 'trick' the camera beyond the camera's usual abilities. Further, a skilled photographer has been taught much of what a talented photographer does instinctively. But knowing does not always equate with understanding, and an untalented but skilled photographer can get technically perfect but completely boring pictures.
I don't mean experience here as someone who has taken a lot of pictures. The third way to get good, unique pictures is to go to unique places and take them. Take a shot of something as incredible as the Earthrise over the Moon's horizon and talent or skill do not touch the fact that you were there. A technically crappy, poorly composed picture of Bigfoot would still be a picture of Bigfoot.
This goes for all art, for athletics and it absolutely goes for conflict. Maybe it goes for everything.
It's not an either/or. With a few exceptions it is not difficult to be talented, to work on skills and to go to extraordinary places. They compound. But it's not always easy.
Simple fact is that most talented people don't get very good. My experience is that the kid who gets 'A++' and effusive complements in his grade school art classes never works that hard to get really good. He is already good enough. I know very few big strong athletic martial artists who bothered to become superb. With an edge in size and strength, they tend to get good enough to dominate the people they know and then get lazy. It usually takes an extraordinary drive, often the iconic smaller/weaker/older technician who can beat the talented individual that shows them there is more.
This is a very human thing. It's a lot of work to get better, and most people stop when they are good enough. So talent, without extraordinary discipline or an extraordinary challenge, can become a trap.
The people without great talent but with desire tend to become the technicians. When others are more talented, you must be more skillful to win. Most of the really superb martial artists and fighters I've known have been runts with a drive to win. Small and weak, they couldn't afford to be merely good. They had to be fantastic to hold their own.
And there are two things that happen here. One is that much of 'talent' falls under the heading of attributes. Like strength, speed, endurance and coordination. Diligent training increases all of those. There are talents that will be backfilled, for want of a better word. The second is that with the right kind of training, your senses start to do what a talented person's always did. A judo prodigy knows the split second when his opponent is about to be off balance. A non-prodigy will learn that over time.
(And it is really infuriating to have something you have spent a decade perfecting being dismissed as, "Well, of course you can do that. You're a natural.")
There is a lot here. Physically untalented people tend to become superb technicians, if they work at it. Mentally untalented people who work equally well tend to become superb teachers. They've received so many explanations and worked out so many ways to grasp things that they can often communicate things they may not be able to do.
But, there is a solid difference between being untalented and ... I need a word. If you have taught for any length of time you know there are certain people that don't get certain things. I'm going to own it and put it down as, "my skill as a teacher is inadequate," but that's not what I feel deep down. I take responsibility because that's the only part of the equation I can affect. And I keep trying. But it seems there are certain people that can't see what is right in front of their eyes. Can't change patterns of movement or behavior. It's rarely physical, it's some kind of mental block. But they actively fight their own learning, even while putting in hours and hours.
And experience. Go to the cool places and take the cool pictures. Go to the dark places and learn about the dark side. It certainly helps to have talent and skill. That's how you make it out. But there is more than that and it compounds. The experience will teach you, very fast and in big block letters, what details are important. And you'll pick up a crude version of what a talented person naturally sees. He sees composition and shadow instead of 'pretty flower.' The experienced person learns a cruder, starker, but equivalent lesson, something on the order of, "I got too close."
It's hard to learn the kind of lessons from experience that you can learn from skill building or training. Ideally, what you are taught is the accumulated experience of hundreds of experienced people. There is no way you would have the time (or the luck) to survive that much experience.
But experience filters your training like nothing else. The devil is in the details but it is experience that tells you which details are important. That's the nature of the way humans learn and teach. They add stuff. They complicate things. They make things special. When you move too far away from experience and focus solely on training it becomes hard to tell which of the added information is important, what is really relevant.
Experience also happens at higher stakes and in compressed time. It not just winnows your training but forges your training and any talent that you have. Fast, dangerous situations force you to be equally fast and extremely precise. Your trained skills become sharper, more adaptable and more reliable. Your talent becomes reliable. And it can become one of the incentives to keep a talented person training.
A talented photographer sees the way a camera sees. For whatever reason, the eye and mind grasp what a thing will look like cropped to picture size, can see not just the trees but the light-and-shadow play in the shape of the trees. If you have a little talent, see a little differently, you can take some good pictures.
A skilled photographer knows his equipment. He knows what to do with all the little dials and how to sometimes 'trick' the camera beyond the camera's usual abilities. Further, a skilled photographer has been taught much of what a talented photographer does instinctively. But knowing does not always equate with understanding, and an untalented but skilled photographer can get technically perfect but completely boring pictures.
I don't mean experience here as someone who has taken a lot of pictures. The third way to get good, unique pictures is to go to unique places and take them. Take a shot of something as incredible as the Earthrise over the Moon's horizon and talent or skill do not touch the fact that you were there. A technically crappy, poorly composed picture of Bigfoot would still be a picture of Bigfoot.
This goes for all art, for athletics and it absolutely goes for conflict. Maybe it goes for everything.
It's not an either/or. With a few exceptions it is not difficult to be talented, to work on skills and to go to extraordinary places. They compound. But it's not always easy.
Simple fact is that most talented people don't get very good. My experience is that the kid who gets 'A++' and effusive complements in his grade school art classes never works that hard to get really good. He is already good enough. I know very few big strong athletic martial artists who bothered to become superb. With an edge in size and strength, they tend to get good enough to dominate the people they know and then get lazy. It usually takes an extraordinary drive, often the iconic smaller/weaker/older technician who can beat the talented individual that shows them there is more.
This is a very human thing. It's a lot of work to get better, and most people stop when they are good enough. So talent, without extraordinary discipline or an extraordinary challenge, can become a trap.
The people without great talent but with desire tend to become the technicians. When others are more talented, you must be more skillful to win. Most of the really superb martial artists and fighters I've known have been runts with a drive to win. Small and weak, they couldn't afford to be merely good. They had to be fantastic to hold their own.
And there are two things that happen here. One is that much of 'talent' falls under the heading of attributes. Like strength, speed, endurance and coordination. Diligent training increases all of those. There are talents that will be backfilled, for want of a better word. The second is that with the right kind of training, your senses start to do what a talented person's always did. A judo prodigy knows the split second when his opponent is about to be off balance. A non-prodigy will learn that over time.
(And it is really infuriating to have something you have spent a decade perfecting being dismissed as, "Well, of course you can do that. You're a natural.")
There is a lot here. Physically untalented people tend to become superb technicians, if they work at it. Mentally untalented people who work equally well tend to become superb teachers. They've received so many explanations and worked out so many ways to grasp things that they can often communicate things they may not be able to do.
But, there is a solid difference between being untalented and ... I need a word. If you have taught for any length of time you know there are certain people that don't get certain things. I'm going to own it and put it down as, "my skill as a teacher is inadequate," but that's not what I feel deep down. I take responsibility because that's the only part of the equation I can affect. And I keep trying. But it seems there are certain people that can't see what is right in front of their eyes. Can't change patterns of movement or behavior. It's rarely physical, it's some kind of mental block. But they actively fight their own learning, even while putting in hours and hours.
And experience. Go to the cool places and take the cool pictures. Go to the dark places and learn about the dark side. It certainly helps to have talent and skill. That's how you make it out. But there is more than that and it compounds. The experience will teach you, very fast and in big block letters, what details are important. And you'll pick up a crude version of what a talented person naturally sees. He sees composition and shadow instead of 'pretty flower.' The experienced person learns a cruder, starker, but equivalent lesson, something on the order of, "I got too close."
It's hard to learn the kind of lessons from experience that you can learn from skill building or training. Ideally, what you are taught is the accumulated experience of hundreds of experienced people. There is no way you would have the time (or the luck) to survive that much experience.
But experience filters your training like nothing else. The devil is in the details but it is experience that tells you which details are important. That's the nature of the way humans learn and teach. They add stuff. They complicate things. They make things special. When you move too far away from experience and focus solely on training it becomes hard to tell which of the added information is important, what is really relevant.
Experience also happens at higher stakes and in compressed time. It not just winnows your training but forges your training and any talent that you have. Fast, dangerous situations force you to be equally fast and extremely precise. Your trained skills become sharper, more adaptable and more reliable. Your talent becomes reliable. And it can become one of the incentives to keep a talented person training.
April 5, 2013
CofV 12.1: Adrenaline Signs
Most people can't fight 'cold'. They need the emotional edge of fear or anger to get over the taboos involved in hurting people. Not everyone, but almost everyone. Even very experienced fighters, whether good guys or bad guys, want to be "in the zone" just like any other athlete. Part of being in the zone is an optimum level of adrenalization.
I'll use adrenaline throughout this as easy shorthand, but know that the SSR (Survival Stress Response) is caused by a slew of hormones and neurotransmitters, not adrenaline all by its lonesome.
There are lots of symptoms of adrenaline-- breathing changes, pulse rate, pupils-- that I don't care about because you can't see them. Signs are distinguished from symptoms in that signs are what you can see.
So common adrenaline signs:
Gross motor activity. Under an adrenaline dump you want to move. Pace. Flex. It seems like as the adrenaline increases both the activity increases (the pacing becomes faster) and seems to concentrate in the big muscle groups-- legs and shoulders.
Clumsiness. Big muscle groups up, small muscle groups down. Shaking, dropping things.
Voice gets higher pitched. Loud is one thing, but I listen for the squeak. Couple of reasons. The funny one is that every team leader so far has had his voice crack the first time he gave the ask-advise-order-check. That reads as nervous to the threat, and we almost always had to fight. Second reason, high pitched voices are one of the signs of fear and fear, like any emotion, is contagious. If one person squeaks or screams, nearby people are more likely to get stupid. Third reason, if the threat hears his own voice break, he may feel compelled to fight to prove that he is not afraid.
Swallowing and licking lip. Or drinking a lot of water if available. Adrenaline burns up a lot of water and makes you very thirsty. Side note: Tardive dyskinesia is one of the side effects of long-term use of psych meds. Street people call it the 'thorazine twitch.' Tardive dyskinesia also involves a lot of lip-licking with darting tongue movements but will also have sharp twitches and (usually) hard blinking.
Rhythmic movement. Almost every person I've seen under an adrenaline dump does something rhythmic. They tap their fingers (especially if they are trying to hide the fear/anger.) Or they bounce on their toes. Some hum. Not usually whistling, the mouth is too dry to whistle.
Color change. Getting red is part of the threat display. These guys don't tend to bother me. They might get stupid and become dangerous, but that's not the sign I'm looking for. When a threat goes pale, things are about to step off. The paleness, of course, comes from peripheral vasoconstriction. the body is trying to make sure that if the saber-toothed tiger gets an arm or a leg you won't bleed too much. Think of sudden pallor as the body clearing the deck for action. Things are imminent.
Danger happens at the intersection of adrenaline and purpose. A drowning man will be adrenalized and have the purpose of breathing, which makes you look like a flotation device. A mugger needs money for drugs and will get his adrenaline into the zone to do the crime.
Some notes, before we go on.
1) Fear, anger and love. I'm a big believer in the James-Lange theory of emotion. The theory states that first there is an event, then there is a hormone dump and THEN you ascribe an emotion to it. They noticed that there's not really a huge difference in the signs and symptoms of intense emotional states. If your mouth is dry and your palms are sweating and your knees are weak and your breathing is rapid and shallow... are you afraid? Or in love?
You get those symptoms when you see a bear, you call it fear. See someone attractive, the exact same symptoms are called 'falling in love.'
So, especially for this subject matter, fear and anger are different labels for the same chemical state. The labels, however, can be powerful motivators. If you call it fear, your instinct may be to curl up in a fetal position. You call it anger and you may fight. There is huge power in consciously labeling. More power, IMO, in NOT labeling and just using the chemicals... but I don't think that's something you can do the first several times. Maybe.
2) Whistling and lighting cigarettes. There are some iconic things in old movies. Lighting a cigarette will show any tremor in your hands, and it is one of the things the heroes and some of the bad guys used to do to show how calm and in control they were. In real life, back when bars allowed smoking, many bouncers practiced so that they could calmly light a cigarette under an adrenaline dump. People subconsciously got it. Calm can be very intimidating in the right circumstances. Same with whistling. I don't suggest whistling around threats, especially mentals, since any high-pitched sound tends to increase adrenaline, but it might help calm you.
Secondary signs.
Most of the adrenaline control methods taught require a certain amount of time. They work better for people responding to a violent situation than people who are attacked. There are a few tricks, but this is about reading a threat, not controlling yourself.
Someone engaged in social violence generally won't try to hide his adrenaline. It's part of the show. The two groups that will try to hide it are criminals and professionals.
Professionals (like bouncers lighting cigarettes mentioned above) tend to have elaborately relaxed body language. Their job is to defuse the situation if at all possible, so they will close distance and get in position while giving relaxed and non-threatening body language. They will be focused on the threat, however. If you see someone who should be showing the signs and isn't and they are focused, assume you have a professional. (As opposed to someone who should be adrenalized and is oblivious, in which case you have your basic nitwit.)
Criminals have to close the distance and set you at your ease. They have to appear NOT to be focused on you and they want to control the adrenaline. Many will engage in self-calming behavior. When your kids are hurt or afraid you pick them up and hug them, right? You basically pet them like small animals. Self-calming is doing that solo. Rubbing the face or neck are the most common.
This probably goes at the end, but danger is in the matrix. When you see someone rubbing his neck and not making direct eye contact but looking at you it's a sign he is adrenalized and trying to control it. If you've known him for awhile (the social aspect of the matrix) he's probably working up his nerve to ask for a date. If he's a stranger? Hmmm. If he is a stranger standing at an abnormal range, with asocial feet alignment and no witnesses? Big red flag.
Their is one more professional reaction, but not necessarily criminal. One of the things with criminals is that they can time when to attack, so they can control their own adrenaline. They can get themselves excited (with visualization, ritual or self-talk) to raise their adrenaline and they can get the adrenaline under control by waiting a little longer, breathing, or other self-calming behaviors.
Victims don't get that choice. When the threat arises, they get an adrenaline dump. If YOU are a force professional (LEO, soldier, bouncer) your job will be to accost people. From their point of view, you are the threat. You will use the same techniques bad guys use to control your own adrenaline (and, hopefully, more consciously, trained and taught and more effectively.) But the people you confront will not have that option. They will get an adrenaline dump.
If they go pale, things are on the edge of going bad.
If, however, the subject goes pale and relaxes and his eyes unfocus, you may be in for a very bad day. Most people tense and shrink up when the adrenaline hits hard. If you see the relax and the thousand yard stare you have stumbled on someone with extensive experience with adrenaline. He knows how to use every last drop of it. If you see this you may well be in for the fight of your life.
On the good side, if you see this the subject is still thinking clearly enough you can reason. You can rarely do that with the ones who go white and tense up.
I'll use adrenaline throughout this as easy shorthand, but know that the SSR (Survival Stress Response) is caused by a slew of hormones and neurotransmitters, not adrenaline all by its lonesome.
There are lots of symptoms of adrenaline-- breathing changes, pulse rate, pupils-- that I don't care about because you can't see them. Signs are distinguished from symptoms in that signs are what you can see.
So common adrenaline signs:
Gross motor activity. Under an adrenaline dump you want to move. Pace. Flex. It seems like as the adrenaline increases both the activity increases (the pacing becomes faster) and seems to concentrate in the big muscle groups-- legs and shoulders.
Clumsiness. Big muscle groups up, small muscle groups down. Shaking, dropping things.
Voice gets higher pitched. Loud is one thing, but I listen for the squeak. Couple of reasons. The funny one is that every team leader so far has had his voice crack the first time he gave the ask-advise-order-check. That reads as nervous to the threat, and we almost always had to fight. Second reason, high pitched voices are one of the signs of fear and fear, like any emotion, is contagious. If one person squeaks or screams, nearby people are more likely to get stupid. Third reason, if the threat hears his own voice break, he may feel compelled to fight to prove that he is not afraid.
Swallowing and licking lip. Or drinking a lot of water if available. Adrenaline burns up a lot of water and makes you very thirsty. Side note: Tardive dyskinesia is one of the side effects of long-term use of psych meds. Street people call it the 'thorazine twitch.' Tardive dyskinesia also involves a lot of lip-licking with darting tongue movements but will also have sharp twitches and (usually) hard blinking.
Rhythmic movement. Almost every person I've seen under an adrenaline dump does something rhythmic. They tap their fingers (especially if they are trying to hide the fear/anger.) Or they bounce on their toes. Some hum. Not usually whistling, the mouth is too dry to whistle.
Color change. Getting red is part of the threat display. These guys don't tend to bother me. They might get stupid and become dangerous, but that's not the sign I'm looking for. When a threat goes pale, things are about to step off. The paleness, of course, comes from peripheral vasoconstriction. the body is trying to make sure that if the saber-toothed tiger gets an arm or a leg you won't bleed too much. Think of sudden pallor as the body clearing the deck for action. Things are imminent.
Danger happens at the intersection of adrenaline and purpose. A drowning man will be adrenalized and have the purpose of breathing, which makes you look like a flotation device. A mugger needs money for drugs and will get his adrenaline into the zone to do the crime.
Some notes, before we go on.
1) Fear, anger and love. I'm a big believer in the James-Lange theory of emotion. The theory states that first there is an event, then there is a hormone dump and THEN you ascribe an emotion to it. They noticed that there's not really a huge difference in the signs and symptoms of intense emotional states. If your mouth is dry and your palms are sweating and your knees are weak and your breathing is rapid and shallow... are you afraid? Or in love?
You get those symptoms when you see a bear, you call it fear. See someone attractive, the exact same symptoms are called 'falling in love.'
So, especially for this subject matter, fear and anger are different labels for the same chemical state. The labels, however, can be powerful motivators. If you call it fear, your instinct may be to curl up in a fetal position. You call it anger and you may fight. There is huge power in consciously labeling. More power, IMO, in NOT labeling and just using the chemicals... but I don't think that's something you can do the first several times. Maybe.
2) Whistling and lighting cigarettes. There are some iconic things in old movies. Lighting a cigarette will show any tremor in your hands, and it is one of the things the heroes and some of the bad guys used to do to show how calm and in control they were. In real life, back when bars allowed smoking, many bouncers practiced so that they could calmly light a cigarette under an adrenaline dump. People subconsciously got it. Calm can be very intimidating in the right circumstances. Same with whistling. I don't suggest whistling around threats, especially mentals, since any high-pitched sound tends to increase adrenaline, but it might help calm you.
Secondary signs.
Most of the adrenaline control methods taught require a certain amount of time. They work better for people responding to a violent situation than people who are attacked. There are a few tricks, but this is about reading a threat, not controlling yourself.
Someone engaged in social violence generally won't try to hide his adrenaline. It's part of the show. The two groups that will try to hide it are criminals and professionals.
Professionals (like bouncers lighting cigarettes mentioned above) tend to have elaborately relaxed body language. Their job is to defuse the situation if at all possible, so they will close distance and get in position while giving relaxed and non-threatening body language. They will be focused on the threat, however. If you see someone who should be showing the signs and isn't and they are focused, assume you have a professional. (As opposed to someone who should be adrenalized and is oblivious, in which case you have your basic nitwit.)
Criminals have to close the distance and set you at your ease. They have to appear NOT to be focused on you and they want to control the adrenaline. Many will engage in self-calming behavior. When your kids are hurt or afraid you pick them up and hug them, right? You basically pet them like small animals. Self-calming is doing that solo. Rubbing the face or neck are the most common.
This probably goes at the end, but danger is in the matrix. When you see someone rubbing his neck and not making direct eye contact but looking at you it's a sign he is adrenalized and trying to control it. If you've known him for awhile (the social aspect of the matrix) he's probably working up his nerve to ask for a date. If he's a stranger? Hmmm. If he is a stranger standing at an abnormal range, with asocial feet alignment and no witnesses? Big red flag.
Their is one more professional reaction, but not necessarily criminal. One of the things with criminals is that they can time when to attack, so they can control their own adrenaline. They can get themselves excited (with visualization, ritual or self-talk) to raise their adrenaline and they can get the adrenaline under control by waiting a little longer, breathing, or other self-calming behaviors.
Victims don't get that choice. When the threat arises, they get an adrenaline dump. If YOU are a force professional (LEO, soldier, bouncer) your job will be to accost people. From their point of view, you are the threat. You will use the same techniques bad guys use to control your own adrenaline (and, hopefully, more consciously, trained and taught and more effectively.) But the people you confront will not have that option. They will get an adrenaline dump.
If they go pale, things are on the edge of going bad.
If, however, the subject goes pale and relaxes and his eyes unfocus, you may be in for a very bad day. Most people tense and shrink up when the adrenaline hits hard. If you see the relax and the thousand yard stare you have stumbled on someone with extensive experience with adrenaline. He knows how to use every last drop of it. If you see this you may well be in for the fight of your life.
On the good side, if you see this the subject is still thinking clearly enough you can reason. You can rarely do that with the ones who go white and tense up.
April 3, 2013
That's Gotta Hurt
I'm going to paraphrase a bunch of things to make a point.
Someone asked how to develop mental toughness. The answer is easy: Do things you don't like to do. Things that scare you or disgust you or chores that you dread. At the same time, cut out things you do enjoy if they serve no purpose. What have your hours or maybe years of TV watching done for your life? No excuses.
That was my answer and the guy kind of chuckled and said, "No, seriously. How do you develop mental toughness?"
Another wants to develop fighting skills without the ick factor of touching people.
Years ago (and the day I decided I really liked Steve Perry) we were on an Orycon panel on the future of pharmaceuticals (and I have NO IDEA how we wound up on that panel). Steve asked the audience; "If there was a pill that would increase your energy, make you more attractive to members of the opposite sex, make you better at sex, make you live longer, lose weight and even make you smarter, would you take it?"
The audience clapped and smiled.
"Would you pay a hundred bucks a month for it?"
"Hell yeah!" the audience cheered.
"Well," said Steve, "It's called 'eat right and exercise' and I can tell just by looking that most of you aren't doing it."
People want things to be easy. They want something for nothing. I get that. But there are some subjects where it is not possible. Your body is not designed to improve under conditions of comfort. It improves under stress. With stress, muscles grow. Without stress, muscles atrophy. You don't get better at running by sitting.
You can get to a certain level of knowledge without pain or exhaustion. You can get to a certain level of skill. But you can't get good . You can convince yourself you're good. As long as you hang with other people who have avoided the same things you have, you can be comparatively good. But you can't get good. Not at fighting and not at competition level anything.
It's gonna hurt. It has to. People want a magical method where they can learn to deal with shock, surprise, pain and exhaustion without feeling shock, surprise, pain and exhaustion. That's not the way the world works, kids.
And I'm not just talking about the swimming analogy-- you know, where you compare learning about any fighting system without fighting as learning to swim without water. That's not what I'm talking about this time.
You can't get good inside your comfort zone. You want to get stronger? Your muscles have to hurt. Want to get flexible? Don't overdo it but you have to stretch beyond your comfort zone. Want to get anaerobically endurant? You have to push until you are sucking wind. Maybe puking.
Want to be better at a motion than the other guy? Then you either practice more than him or more mindfully or, ideally, both.
In "Campfire Tales from Hell" Dan Gilardi did a little article called, "Want to Learn how to Win? Learn How to Lose." Essence is, unless you go into challenges that will kick your ass you will never rise to the level of skill or 'mental toughness' or conditioning required to meet that level of challenge.
When in doubt, push.
Some of our training-- with the team, with Dave, with Wolfgang-- literally scared people. People would walk in and walk out after watching one class. Administrators would say, "Is that really necessary?" For their jobs the answer was "No." For our jobs, yeah, it was necessary. It never stops hurting, you just stop caring. Some would tell us it was unnecessary. A few openly called it abuse. (But these are the people that think that sore muscles are a punishment.)
I'm worried, frankly. When people start having a knee-jerk reaction that pain is bad and discomfort is bad it seems like a short step before they start classifying Olympic level training (as an example) as child abuse or torture.
Caveat here, before I close: Train hard, don't train stupid. Injuries make you less survivable. And there is no gain in emotionally abusing a student. They have to feel emotionally safe in order to learn about physical danger. For that matter, if you feel safe emotionally abusing your self-defense students, you aren't teaching them right.
That said, all valuable training happens outside the comfort zone. Physically, mentally, emotionally you have to push the envelope. It's gotta hurt.
Someone asked how to develop mental toughness. The answer is easy: Do things you don't like to do. Things that scare you or disgust you or chores that you dread. At the same time, cut out things you do enjoy if they serve no purpose. What have your hours or maybe years of TV watching done for your life? No excuses.
That was my answer and the guy kind of chuckled and said, "No, seriously. How do you develop mental toughness?"
Another wants to develop fighting skills without the ick factor of touching people.
Years ago (and the day I decided I really liked Steve Perry) we were on an Orycon panel on the future of pharmaceuticals (and I have NO IDEA how we wound up on that panel). Steve asked the audience; "If there was a pill that would increase your energy, make you more attractive to members of the opposite sex, make you better at sex, make you live longer, lose weight and even make you smarter, would you take it?"
The audience clapped and smiled.
"Would you pay a hundred bucks a month for it?"
"Hell yeah!" the audience cheered.
"Well," said Steve, "It's called 'eat right and exercise' and I can tell just by looking that most of you aren't doing it."
People want things to be easy. They want something for nothing. I get that. But there are some subjects where it is not possible. Your body is not designed to improve under conditions of comfort. It improves under stress. With stress, muscles grow. Without stress, muscles atrophy. You don't get better at running by sitting.
You can get to a certain level of knowledge without pain or exhaustion. You can get to a certain level of skill. But you can't get good . You can convince yourself you're good. As long as you hang with other people who have avoided the same things you have, you can be comparatively good. But you can't get good. Not at fighting and not at competition level anything.
It's gonna hurt. It has to. People want a magical method where they can learn to deal with shock, surprise, pain and exhaustion without feeling shock, surprise, pain and exhaustion. That's not the way the world works, kids.
And I'm not just talking about the swimming analogy-- you know, where you compare learning about any fighting system without fighting as learning to swim without water. That's not what I'm talking about this time.
You can't get good inside your comfort zone. You want to get stronger? Your muscles have to hurt. Want to get flexible? Don't overdo it but you have to stretch beyond your comfort zone. Want to get anaerobically endurant? You have to push until you are sucking wind. Maybe puking.
Want to be better at a motion than the other guy? Then you either practice more than him or more mindfully or, ideally, both.
In "Campfire Tales from Hell" Dan Gilardi did a little article called, "Want to Learn how to Win? Learn How to Lose." Essence is, unless you go into challenges that will kick your ass you will never rise to the level of skill or 'mental toughness' or conditioning required to meet that level of challenge.
When in doubt, push.
Some of our training-- with the team, with Dave, with Wolfgang-- literally scared people. People would walk in and walk out after watching one class. Administrators would say, "Is that really necessary?" For their jobs the answer was "No." For our jobs, yeah, it was necessary. It never stops hurting, you just stop caring. Some would tell us it was unnecessary. A few openly called it abuse. (But these are the people that think that sore muscles are a punishment.)
I'm worried, frankly. When people start having a knee-jerk reaction that pain is bad and discomfort is bad it seems like a short step before they start classifying Olympic level training (as an example) as child abuse or torture.
Caveat here, before I close: Train hard, don't train stupid. Injuries make you less survivable. And there is no gain in emotionally abusing a student. They have to feel emotionally safe in order to learn about physical danger. For that matter, if you feel safe emotionally abusing your self-defense students, you aren't teaching them right.
That said, all valuable training happens outside the comfort zone. Physically, mentally, emotionally you have to push the envelope. It's gotta hurt.
March 29, 2013
CofV 12: Identifying Danger
This will be a recap and an overview of what's to come.
Violence serves a purpose. Multiple purposes, actually. And the purpose it serves, the goals (and parameters) will drive how the violence occurs.
The threat who wants money for drugs will approach differently than the drunk college kid trying to impress a girl and neither will be quite the same as the person from a violent subculture who feels he has been shamed in front of his peers.
Knowing the base-- the different types of violence and their motivations-- is critical, but it is far from complete.
Also, to be clear: this is what I have seen. This information here has allowed me to recognize, evaluate and manipulate situations. That doesn't mean it is right. It doesn't mean I'm right. Actually, the second sentence in the paragraph is not how it worked. Like most of what I teach, this was back-engineered. Recognizing, evaluating and manipulating came first. The labels and connections and commonalities are what came out in the analysis and the debriefings. Success came long before understanding.
If you ever need this information, you will be the one on the ground. You will be there. I will not. Pay attention and make your judgment and act. You will need to trust yourself, but not naively. Learn. Study people like animals (because we are). Many people have very good instincts with other people, but some don't and the ones that don't tend to be in the victim profiles. The other victim profile, of course, include those who over-estimate their awareness or street smarts.
This is about human interaction and the analysis of human reaction. Like almost anything that has to do with humans it is both complex and dead simple. Not a mix. It is both. When it comes to reading a person the complexity comes in the interaction primarily of goal, ability and adrenaline.
The simplicity comes in, "He wants X and he is preparing to get it in this way." People get in trouble when they take that simple part and make it complicated. Do you need to know metallurgy to turn a wrench? Neither do you need to know someone's internal existential struggles to deal with that person as a threat. Recognize complexity where it is unavoidable but never imagine or create it. Occam's razor applies.
The next sections will be on recognizing adrenaline signs. Then differences in social and asocial approaches and distinguishing between threat displays and pre-assault indicators. I'm toying with writing about architecture, but I think my insight there is very limited.
As far as reading people, Terry Trahan's chapter in "Campfire Tales from Hell" is really good and hits it from a slightly different angle than I will. It's highly recommended (and I don't get money for it so I don't feel guilty plugging it.)
Violence serves a purpose. Multiple purposes, actually. And the purpose it serves, the goals (and parameters) will drive how the violence occurs.
The threat who wants money for drugs will approach differently than the drunk college kid trying to impress a girl and neither will be quite the same as the person from a violent subculture who feels he has been shamed in front of his peers.
Knowing the base-- the different types of violence and their motivations-- is critical, but it is far from complete.
Also, to be clear: this is what I have seen. This information here has allowed me to recognize, evaluate and manipulate situations. That doesn't mean it is right. It doesn't mean I'm right. Actually, the second sentence in the paragraph is not how it worked. Like most of what I teach, this was back-engineered. Recognizing, evaluating and manipulating came first. The labels and connections and commonalities are what came out in the analysis and the debriefings. Success came long before understanding.
If you ever need this information, you will be the one on the ground. You will be there. I will not. Pay attention and make your judgment and act. You will need to trust yourself, but not naively. Learn. Study people like animals (because we are). Many people have very good instincts with other people, but some don't and the ones that don't tend to be in the victim profiles. The other victim profile, of course, include those who over-estimate their awareness or street smarts.
This is about human interaction and the analysis of human reaction. Like almost anything that has to do with humans it is both complex and dead simple. Not a mix. It is both. When it comes to reading a person the complexity comes in the interaction primarily of goal, ability and adrenaline.
The simplicity comes in, "He wants X and he is preparing to get it in this way." People get in trouble when they take that simple part and make it complicated. Do you need to know metallurgy to turn a wrench? Neither do you need to know someone's internal existential struggles to deal with that person as a threat. Recognize complexity where it is unavoidable but never imagine or create it. Occam's razor applies.
The next sections will be on recognizing adrenaline signs. Then differences in social and asocial approaches and distinguishing between threat displays and pre-assault indicators. I'm toying with writing about architecture, but I think my insight there is very limited.
As far as reading people, Terry Trahan's chapter in "Campfire Tales from Hell" is really good and hits it from a slightly different angle than I will. It's highly recommended (and I don't get money for it so I don't feel guilty plugging it.)
March 27, 2013
Fundamental Inefficiency
Watched a highly ranked martial artist a while ago, and something's been bugging me. He was smooth. He had a good explanation of what he did and why. He had a lot of little, subtle motions (subtle is not the same as fine motor skill, these were good) and some fighters I respect were impressed. But something struck me as just...off.
I've seen other practitioners of this style. Some were good, some terrible. But all had his same 'off' feeling.
Finally figured it out. In every case, they were doing inefficient things efficiently. The best practitioners are smooth. The 'slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept works because speed is really based on efficiency. Smooth is efficient. The less you move to get the same effect, the more efficient you are and the faster you seem.
So each actual motion was very efficient, but he would use five or six moves when only one or two were necessary to get to the same result. In one case, a 45 degree difference in the first step would cut out the need for three moves. And give you more options.
So there is a difference between efficiency of motion and tactical efficiency. And even experienced people sometimes confuse them. And people love complexity. If they are quick enough to get away with it, people tend to extend engagements (at least play or training engagements) and make things more complex.
Efficient complexity may look good. Maybe some people see it as proof of skill. But simplicity is efficient. Efficiency by itself isn't 'mastery' (I hate that word.) It's efficiency of motion and efficiency of tactics and strategic efficiency. Minimum motion for maximum effect.
Kano was a genius. (Maximum efficiency, minimum effort.)
Particulars:
Does your uke have to attack from out of range for your technique to work? Big red flag.Does your technique require or expect uke to follow a specific pattern?Is that pattern nonsensical with respect to tori's movement?Does tori use more motions than uke?Does uke have to hold still?If what you do is truly efficient, none of these training artifacts are necessary.
I've seen other practitioners of this style. Some were good, some terrible. But all had his same 'off' feeling.
Finally figured it out. In every case, they were doing inefficient things efficiently. The best practitioners are smooth. The 'slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept works because speed is really based on efficiency. Smooth is efficient. The less you move to get the same effect, the more efficient you are and the faster you seem.
So each actual motion was very efficient, but he would use five or six moves when only one or two were necessary to get to the same result. In one case, a 45 degree difference in the first step would cut out the need for three moves. And give you more options.
So there is a difference between efficiency of motion and tactical efficiency. And even experienced people sometimes confuse them. And people love complexity. If they are quick enough to get away with it, people tend to extend engagements (at least play or training engagements) and make things more complex.
Efficient complexity may look good. Maybe some people see it as proof of skill. But simplicity is efficient. Efficiency by itself isn't 'mastery' (I hate that word.) It's efficiency of motion and efficiency of tactics and strategic efficiency. Minimum motion for maximum effect.
Kano was a genius. (Maximum efficiency, minimum effort.)
Particulars:
Does your uke have to attack from out of range for your technique to work? Big red flag.Does your technique require or expect uke to follow a specific pattern?Is that pattern nonsensical with respect to tori's movement?Does tori use more motions than uke?Does uke have to hold still?If what you do is truly efficient, none of these training artifacts are necessary.
March 26, 2013
CofV11: The Status Seeking Show
In Orson Scott Card’s “Ender’s Game” a young Ender in his first fight escalates the event to a brutal beating as a warning to others.
Deadwood, Dakota Territory, 1876. Jack McCall shoots James Butler “Wild Bill” Hickock in the back of the head. Though McCall is acquitted at his first, irregular trial, he is retried and found guilty after bragging about the shooting.
Long a staple of prison literature, the fish (new prisoner) must prove to all that he is more brutal than anything he will face. As Jack Henry Abbot wrote: “The first…I forced him to his knees , and with my knife at his throat, made him… This is the way it is done.” ( In the Belly of the Beast , Jack Henry Abbot, 1981 pp 93-94)
This is the Status Seeking Show, a very particular type of violence aimed at achieving a very particular social effect.
Some societies and sub-societies are relatively dangerous. People beat and stab others over insults or drug deals gone bad. It’s not just dangerous, it’s also stressful and it feels like there is no way out. Humans are smart and adaptable however, and some have found a clever way to feel safe in that environment. They get a reputation.
It’s a very specific reputation. They want to be known as ‘hard’ or ‘crazy.’ They want to be seen as someone ‘too dangerous to mess with.’ The way to get this reputation is simple: You break the rules of social violence.
Social violence has rules, and most of the previous articles have introduced some of the rules:
Individuals Monkey Dance at their own level. Lieutenants vie with lieutenants, not generals. Men Monkey Dance with other men, not with women and not with children.The Educational Beat Down requires that a rule be broken, that the person be told why they will be punished, it comes from higher in the hierarchy and it ends when the target acknowledges their guilt.
The Status Seeking Show breaks the rules. Shooting an authority figure or shooting a child. Beating someone who has not broken a rule or refusing to acknowledge the signal to stop. Using extreme violence when it is unnecessary specifically because it is unnecessary.
Of the types of social violence, the status seeking show may be the most dangerous. The group monkey dance variations are brutal, but often preventable (don’t betray a group that enforces rules violently) or predictable (groups of young men raising hell and heading your way are usually easy to see coming). When someone wants to send a message that he doesn’t follow the rules, predictability and preventability go way down.
It can be as brutal as any predatory violence, moreso since it is about the show, not about getting stuff. The brutality of a status seeking show is inefficient when the goal is money or drugs.
Identifying a Status Seeking ShowThe SSS can present like a Monkey Dance, an Educational Beat Down or like a Bonding Group Monkey Dance. The key is differentiating.
A MD traditionally starts with the hard stare and the challenge, e.g. “What you lookin’ at?” The MD is predictable and there are ways to prevent it. You can apologize, change the subject… almost anything but play the game back. When these tactics fail, it is likely that this is not about status, but about show or fun. Either is dangerous. In a normal MD, the threat’s attention will be focused on you and internally. On you because he is reading subtle signals about your status; internally because he is afraid of not being man enough. In most SSSs, the threat is consciously playing to the audience. I hope you never experience enough of these to be able to tell the difference at a glance, but you can.
An Educational Beat Down almost always starts with a statement about the rule you have broken (unless the rule is blatantly obvious in that culture) and often comes with instructions. It can range from, “Apologize to the lady.” to “Don’t disrespect me or we are gonna throw down.”
Unless the rule is egregious, like (probably the most common in situations that lead to violence) having an affair, a sincere and respectful apology almost always sidesteps escalation. It must be sincere, without smirks or eye-rolling. It must be respectful, without any comments about lower orders of being or stupid rules. “I’m sorry, I didn’t know.” Has gotten me out of missteps from Baghdad to Quito. Tagging on, “But that’s a dumb rule,” would have ended badly. If an apology doesn’t work, you may be looking at an SSS.
There are other clues as well. An EBD usually comes from a high-status member of a group. Not the highest, but high. If the person attempting to correct your behavior is low status, he may be trying to build a reputation. Because of the status levels, a person doing a ‘proper’ EBD will not be looking to the group for approval. A low status individual will, and he often won’t get it. I’ve worked with populations of criminals mostly and in this situation, old cons well know the insecurities that drive this behavior and do not respect it. They won’t interfere, that would be against the code, but they won’t approve, either.
Be very, very careful. De-escalation and prevention must be sincere and your pride is one of the biggest traps waiting for you. A sincere apology or not playing the Monkey Dance back at the threat almost always works. But a part of your brain, especially if you are a young man, is going to kick in and try to save face. A part of your brain will want you to say something nasty under your voice while walking away. Will want to let the other person know that you still think he is beneath you. Will trigger a crisis that you could have prevented.
And if you are one of the people who wants a confrontation, an insincere de-escalation will fail…and you might tell yourself “De-escalation failed! This isn’t a Monkey Dance! This is a Status-Seeking Show!” and go for a level of force that is unjustified or unnecessary. DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF.
A Status Seeking Show may precipitate a Group Monkey Dance. Sometimes you will have successfully de-escalated a situation only to find one member will not let it go or begins to egg the others on. It is an SSS if the member initiates an attack and sometimes, emotions being contagious, others will join in. Related dynamic is the mouth in the group egging the others on, "You gonna let him walk away? He's playing you!"
Two things become clear in an analysis of the SSS.
1) Your own pride, as the potential victim, can be a dangerous pitfall. Not because there is anything wrong with standing up for yourself or standing up to the bad people of the world. Pride is dangerous because it prevents you from seeing the situation, or even your own actions clearly. Pride in self-defense may be easy to see, but the mechanism is the same in little things: “I was perfectly clear, so if my employees didn’t understand what I wanted it is their fault.” Same mechanism.
2) Preclusion is important. In most jurisdictions one of the tests to establish if an act of force was self-defense includes whether or not there were valid non-violent options, like leaving or apologizing. Not only is a sincere attempt to de-escalate valuable in a claim of self-defense, it can give you valuable information about what is really going on.
I want to expand on point two. There are types of violence that have very similar (or not) outcomes and similar dynamics that have very different causes. You must distinguish them because the necessary deescalations are different.
That's too obscure. A Monkey Dance is low risk. A Status Seeking Show is high risk. But the pattern will be the same until the very end. Preclusion (trying to walk away, trying to apologize) is not a good idea just because of self-defense law but it is the easiest test to find which you face. Same with the two date-rape dynamics-- there is a test to tell you which you are facing. Sharks and tigers are both dangerous, but they are avoided in different ways. You have to be able to tell what you are facing.
There is also an individual dynamic with the SSS. It starts as a low-status, low-esteem, unrespected member of the group. As mentioned before, the old cons don't respect these guys. They're punks. But once they have the rep, they sometimes need to feed the rep. And in an more organized outlaw group, they will be used as disposable enforcers. But some of them get good at it and some of them get addicted, and they become very dangerous provided they stay alive and out of prison. Their dangerousness is based on being crazy, unpredictable and violent. Not cool under pressure or skilled.
March 23, 2013
Unpublished
The blog is up to 1001 post (1002 including this one). If you count the unpublished drafts. I'll announce when I break a thousand published. Should be soon. I'm counting because I just decided not to publish one.
Some of the unpublished ones are first drafts of articles that were published. A few are crap.
But there are a few...
In some I couldn't get the tone right. There are certain things you can't learn when things are going well. Learning about inner workings of some organizations requires enough of a consistent type of painful mistake that you can see and come to predict the pattern. Learning anything about the mechanics of a violent assault almost always requires mistakes. You learn certain things because you are stupid in certain ways...and almost every time I've tried to write about that, it comes off sounding whiny and self-pitying to my own ears. I simply don't have the skill as a writer to make certain points in the right way.
Same with certain kinds of clarification. When "Meditations on Violence" first came out, some of the reviewers read diametrically opposite things in the same material. I'd been warned about that by the professional writers, but my first instinct was to explain, to clarify... and that fails on two levels. First, people will read what they want or expect to read and that includes in the clarification. Second, it just sounds defensive. Especially if you are defensive it serves no purpose but to validate the point of view.
Actually, there's a third-- anything you write must stand on its own. Writing is a telepathic message into the future. You won't always be alive to clarify.
There are subjects I stay away from, but have strong opinions about. Especially when the political silly season was on, I wanted to write about economics and politics. People conflate money and wealth; conflate jobs and work. But these issues are so tied to the limbic system it would do no good, except give people an excuse to not listen to core things.
Some of the unpublished stuff is just too personal. I write fairly close to the bone here, share, share some deep water stuff. But there are some wounds that I'm afraid will always be fresh. Some complicated feelings that I don't think can ever be shared adequately in the written word. Some that can only be grasped by a very few people. And some of this is stuff I want to write, stuff that tries to claw its way out of me and onto paper. Maybe I'll let K publish it when I croak.
And some of it is just pure mean. And K tells me not to be mean.
Some of the unpublished ones are first drafts of articles that were published. A few are crap.
But there are a few...
In some I couldn't get the tone right. There are certain things you can't learn when things are going well. Learning about inner workings of some organizations requires enough of a consistent type of painful mistake that you can see and come to predict the pattern. Learning anything about the mechanics of a violent assault almost always requires mistakes. You learn certain things because you are stupid in certain ways...and almost every time I've tried to write about that, it comes off sounding whiny and self-pitying to my own ears. I simply don't have the skill as a writer to make certain points in the right way.
Same with certain kinds of clarification. When "Meditations on Violence" first came out, some of the reviewers read diametrically opposite things in the same material. I'd been warned about that by the professional writers, but my first instinct was to explain, to clarify... and that fails on two levels. First, people will read what they want or expect to read and that includes in the clarification. Second, it just sounds defensive. Especially if you are defensive it serves no purpose but to validate the point of view.
Actually, there's a third-- anything you write must stand on its own. Writing is a telepathic message into the future. You won't always be alive to clarify.
There are subjects I stay away from, but have strong opinions about. Especially when the political silly season was on, I wanted to write about economics and politics. People conflate money and wealth; conflate jobs and work. But these issues are so tied to the limbic system it would do no good, except give people an excuse to not listen to core things.
Some of the unpublished stuff is just too personal. I write fairly close to the bone here, share, share some deep water stuff. But there are some wounds that I'm afraid will always be fresh. Some complicated feelings that I don't think can ever be shared adequately in the written word. Some that can only be grasped by a very few people. And some of this is stuff I want to write, stuff that tries to claw its way out of me and onto paper. Maybe I'll let K publish it when I croak.
And some of it is just pure mean. And K tells me not to be mean.
March 21, 2013
CofV10: The Educational BeatDown
All societies, subsocieties and groups have rules. Sometimes the rules are formal—states and nations have statutes and even the local gardening club has bylaws. Sometimes the rules are informal. Families don’t have constitutions, but the kids know what behaviors will get them in trouble.
In any given society, the rules will be enforced. Maybe not well or consistently, but they will be enforced.
In a healthy group (defined as one in which everyone agrees on the methods and goals) ‘enforcement’ may be merely a glance. Someone does something wrong, you look at him, maybe with a raised eyebrow, possibly say, “Really?” and he says, “Ah, dammit. I screwed up. Sorry.” Unless it turns into a power play, the verbal variation of the Monkey Dance, the member of a healthy group is grateful for the correction.
As groups become less healthy, they also become less secure. The methods for correcting behavior escalate, from informal gossip campaigns and chilling a person out to screaming at subordinates…
There are other factors at play. Different subsocieties have much different attitudes towards physical force. Some families spank, some do not. Some groups thwack the back of the head, some do not. Some nations execute, some do not.
These three factors: health of a group; security or insecurity of the group or its leadership and; attitudes toward violence shape if and when the educational beat-down will ever be a self-defense issue for you.
There are three cases where the EBD may be dangerous.
#1: If you are a dick. There is a pattern to the EBD. The first step is that you do something wrong. Yes, you. We all make errors and step on toes from time to time. If you think you never do or, worse, always have a reason why it is the other guy’s fault, you’re a dick. If you refuse to acknowledge that your group has rules or that the rules should apply to you, if you feel you are being oppressed by any rule you don’t happen to like… you’re a dick.
For most people, breaking the rules isn’t a big thing. You realize you violated protocol, acknowledge that there was an error and the error was yours, accept punishment if the group thinks it was merited, and move on. This is called “accepting responsibility,” and one of my personal rants is about people who want to skip the step about accepting the punishment. Merely acknowledging the error was yours is NOT accepting responsibility.
Rant aside, jerks have problems with every step of this. Most importantly, refusal to acknowledge that the rule existed and that you broke it prevents the EBD pattern from closing. It demands an escalation in correction.
“Toby! Apologize to your sister!”“No!”“Then go to your room and stay there until you are ready to apologize!”“No!”“Do you want a spanking?”
If you insist on being a dick, punishment will escalate until you are removed from the group, whether that means being fired or being beaten to death behind a bar. If you’ve been fired or divorced a lot, partner, it’s time to do some soul-searching. Cause you’re probably a dick.
#2) If the group or the leadership is insecure. This factor applies to all social violence but is especially obvious in corrective violence.
We are basically primates and a lot of our wiring is older than our ability to communicate. When we get tense, afraid or insecure, we tend to fall back on ancient patterns of behavior. If you are a good boss and people want your recognition and approval, they hurry to do what you say and work hard not to get you upset. If you are a terrible boss, people also hurry to do what you say and work hard not to get you upset. The emotional mind doesn’t really distinguish submissive behavior stemming from respect or submissive behavior stemming from fear.
When a boss feels he is coming under fire, he has a tendency to get loud and aggressive. This is what his limbic system is telling him to do. This will get submission signals from his group. This will make everything better.
From the outside, we see more clearly. We call this behavior “losing it” for a reason. If it happens in a society with a propensity for violence, it can escalate to a beating or murder. Like when Al Capone beat three of his lieutenants to death in 1929.
#3) Where you don’t know the rules. Most of us spend time around people that share our basic attitudes and beliefs. We know the rules and know, consciously or not, how they will be enforced. It can be a very dangerous situation when a person or a group travel to an unfamiliar place and expect or demand that the rules remain the same.
Whether it is a group of college kids going to the biker bar on the edge of town for a thrill or someone who hopes to backpack through another country, they will be exposed to new rules. It’s usually not a problem unless they possess that certain mix of arrogance and stupidity—unless they demand the right to follow their own rules.
In many cultures it is safe to be arrogant and stupid. If the culture is very homogenized and insular, silence or possibly stares are the worst that will happen. They will hate you, but they won’t hurt you.
In other cultures where violence is seen as an easy answer to many problems, it can be very dangerous. But even in a culture that regularly handles social disputes with knives or assault rifles, trouble is usually easy to avoid or evade.
Avoid trouble by not being there, of course, but if that is not an option:Keep your mouth shut. Answer questions, be polite, but don’t offer an opinion or try to ‘fix’ the locals. And especially don’t feel magnanimous or superior enough to say something like, “You people are ignorant and you worship evil, but that’s your right. Don’t change.” A British tourist I overheard in Istanbul.Be polite. That isn’t hard. Don’t stare, don’t back away, don’t argue.
Evading trouble is also easy. The Educational Beat Down follows a pattern and the pattern is universal. How does a child get out of a spanking? “I broke the lamp, mommy, I’m really sorry and I won’t do it again.” How does a killer get the death penalty taken off the table? Usually with a full confession and a show of remorse. How do you avoid hard feelings (or worse) when you try to speak Arabic to a Kurd? Or flirt with the bouncer’s girl? “I’m sorry. I didn’t know. It won’t happen again.”
Most of the time, if you acknowledge it was a valid rule, that you broke the rule and that you won’t do it again, there is no need to teach you a lesson. The behavior has been corrected and that is the sole purpose of the EBD: to enforce norms of behavior.
If you try to evade responsibility or say the rule was stupid or that the rule shouldn’t apply to you, if you put any weasel words into the apology, you don’t get it. The correction must escalate.
There is a fourth situation in which the EBD is dangerous, but it is more an historical artifact then a current problem. When resources are scarce, for instance, if a tribe expects a few starvation deaths each winter, people who don’t follow societal rules are a liability. Fewer things are punishable by death in an affluent society than in a marginal one.
There are very dangerous behaviors that can mimic the EBD. More accurately, many people use the underlying motivations of the EBD to attempt to justify viciousness. Abusers say, and may honestly believe, that they are teaching a lesson. Justified excessive force complaints arise when officers switch from subduing a suspect to punishing a perp. A fully justified act of self-defense can turn into assault with just a few extra kicks to send a message.
The dynamics of the EBD are also mimicked in the two most dangerous of the types of social violence: the Status Seeking Show (next lesson) and sometimes the bonding-style Group Monkey Dance (last lesson). Social violence, unlike predation, is primarily a form of communication, dysfunctional though it may be. Even if the real goal is just to enjoy beating someone, it goes better if the beating is preceded by a provocation from you.
“I beat her up for no reason,” doesn’t get a lot of play even in bad crowds. “Bitch called me fucktard so I taught her a lesson,” plays better.
The person looking for an excuse to get violent will try to get you to do or say something that can be used as a rationalization. It is not a reason—they already have the reason in that they want to hurt someone. It just needs to sound like a reason. When someone tries to incite you to inflammatory language and anger, that is the time to slow down, and act thoughtful and cold. And check the audience.
If there is no audience, this is probably a lead-in to a predatory assault. Experienced predators will mimic social patterns so that YOU stay on the predictable (and much less violent) social script. If there is an audience and they are egging on the threat, be prepared for a Monkey Dance. Apologize and leave, but be prepared to crash through the crowd if necessary.
March 18, 2013
Leadership and Management
Leadership and management; committees and teams.
Working on some new material for the Conflict Communications course and dealing with other projects as well.
There are two links that will help with the background on this post:
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2010/01/group-dynamics.html
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-basics.html
(Turns out I've never actually done a post on the ICS model and goals-backward versus resources-forward thinking. Maybe it was in "Meditations on Violence?" Memory is the second thing to go.)
I have a saying that if you don't know the difference between leadership and management, you're a manager. But knowing the difference is not the same as putting it in words or being able to explain the difference. Almost every book on leadership I've ever read was about management and written by a manager who thought he was a leader. The notable exception is Paul Howe's "Leadership and Training for the Fight."
So now I'm trying to put it into words and I think I have it, but it has an unexpected twist.
Managers are systems builders. They desire to create a system, a network of facilities and policies that remove the human element. They want to believe (and insist) that all people are equal, that all officers (or workers or deputies or soldiers) are the same and should be treated the same. They believe that if they can ever make a perfect system, the system will run smoothly and efficiently regardless of the actual humans that are doing the work.
And this is the first twist. The managers that I know are far more likely to talk about 'respect' and 'diversity' than the leaders I know, but the systems they create are inhuman machines. And so they 'respect diversity' while trying to reduce all people to numbers. To interchangeable cogs in this inhuman machine. All the while insisting they are only trying to be 'fair.'
My personal belief is that this isn't so much about the system or about the goal. I don't think it's that teleological. I think it is about trying to minimize personal conflict. You're a manager, you don't want to fire people. So much easier to just be the messenger who gives them the message that under current policy they can no longer be employed. The policy, not the boss, did the firing. There's still conflict, but you can pretend it's not personal. As long as you follow the policies, you have no responsibility for the outcomes. Because there are no decisions.
Another way to put it is that managers try to create a flow chart without personal decisions affecting the outcome. Remove the personal element and the product will always be perfect.
It works okay. It must, since management is rampant and leadership is rare. But there are severe weaknesses to this kind of system. The first that comes to mind is the inflexibility. Reliance on emergency protocols can be really, really good-- as long as you get an emergency you predicted and wrote a protocol for. Inflexibility also hurts you when you have a time-sensitive opportunity.
The second obvious problem is that there are people who excel at manipulating systems. No matter how well designed or well intentioned, bad people do bad things with good systems.
Third problem is that sooner or later, the system becomes the purpose. Hospitals exist to stay in business rather than to treat people. Governments promote and protect the parties rather than the citizens. How you do something (whether you followed the procedure) becomes more important than what you did-- and so we have retail workers fired for defending themselves and paramedics in the UK who must go into more detail in their reports about the safety equipment they wore than on how the victim was extracted from the crashed vehicle.
There are more, but don't get too comfortable and self-righteous. Management is more pervasive because it is more popular. Most people would rather be managed than led. Because being led demands more. It demands personal responsibility.
"I followed the policy. It's not my fault." Is adequate in a system. In the kind of place where leadership is allowed the answer is:
"Policy is no excuse. You knew this would happen."
The only protection under leadership is your personal skill, and very few people are comfortable with that. Management may create a soulless machine, but a lot of people seem comfortable there.
Leadership is about people, not policy. It is about telling people to their faces when they have screwed up and also when they have done well. Leadership is not always superior to management. It is much easier to be a bad leader than a bad manager and it has more effect. It is also easier to be a good leader than a good manager, and that has more effect to.
And that may be part of the difference. Managerial systems are designed so that the cogs are interchangeable. Including the managers. So a manager, whether good or bad, will cause little change. The situation is perfect for those who fear doing something wrong more than they value doing something well.
Maybe it's not such a twist. I was originally puzzled that so many I talk to think of leaders as hard chargers with little regard for others, when leadership is a people skill. Conversely, the words coming out of every HR department I've worked with have all been about valuing the individual, and fairness... and they are responsible for creating and maintaining an inhuman system.
But looked at from the twin perspectives of trying to avoid personal responsibility and avoid personal conflict it does make sense. Thus the people who use the word 'diversity' as a mantra want everyone to look different but think the same. It limits conflict. And I wanted the widest variety of backgrounds on my teams as possible, because people who thought different would come at problems from different angles. More conflict, but we solved some issues.
That's enough typing for now. Teams and committees will have to come later.
Working on some new material for the Conflict Communications course and dealing with other projects as well.
There are two links that will help with the background on this post:
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2010/01/group-dynamics.html
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-basics.html
(Turns out I've never actually done a post on the ICS model and goals-backward versus resources-forward thinking. Maybe it was in "Meditations on Violence?" Memory is the second thing to go.)
I have a saying that if you don't know the difference between leadership and management, you're a manager. But knowing the difference is not the same as putting it in words or being able to explain the difference. Almost every book on leadership I've ever read was about management and written by a manager who thought he was a leader. The notable exception is Paul Howe's "Leadership and Training for the Fight."
So now I'm trying to put it into words and I think I have it, but it has an unexpected twist.
Managers are systems builders. They desire to create a system, a network of facilities and policies that remove the human element. They want to believe (and insist) that all people are equal, that all officers (or workers or deputies or soldiers) are the same and should be treated the same. They believe that if they can ever make a perfect system, the system will run smoothly and efficiently regardless of the actual humans that are doing the work.
And this is the first twist. The managers that I know are far more likely to talk about 'respect' and 'diversity' than the leaders I know, but the systems they create are inhuman machines. And so they 'respect diversity' while trying to reduce all people to numbers. To interchangeable cogs in this inhuman machine. All the while insisting they are only trying to be 'fair.'
My personal belief is that this isn't so much about the system or about the goal. I don't think it's that teleological. I think it is about trying to minimize personal conflict. You're a manager, you don't want to fire people. So much easier to just be the messenger who gives them the message that under current policy they can no longer be employed. The policy, not the boss, did the firing. There's still conflict, but you can pretend it's not personal. As long as you follow the policies, you have no responsibility for the outcomes. Because there are no decisions.
Another way to put it is that managers try to create a flow chart without personal decisions affecting the outcome. Remove the personal element and the product will always be perfect.
It works okay. It must, since management is rampant and leadership is rare. But there are severe weaknesses to this kind of system. The first that comes to mind is the inflexibility. Reliance on emergency protocols can be really, really good-- as long as you get an emergency you predicted and wrote a protocol for. Inflexibility also hurts you when you have a time-sensitive opportunity.
The second obvious problem is that there are people who excel at manipulating systems. No matter how well designed or well intentioned, bad people do bad things with good systems.
Third problem is that sooner or later, the system becomes the purpose. Hospitals exist to stay in business rather than to treat people. Governments promote and protect the parties rather than the citizens. How you do something (whether you followed the procedure) becomes more important than what you did-- and so we have retail workers fired for defending themselves and paramedics in the UK who must go into more detail in their reports about the safety equipment they wore than on how the victim was extracted from the crashed vehicle.
There are more, but don't get too comfortable and self-righteous. Management is more pervasive because it is more popular. Most people would rather be managed than led. Because being led demands more. It demands personal responsibility.
"I followed the policy. It's not my fault." Is adequate in a system. In the kind of place where leadership is allowed the answer is:
"Policy is no excuse. You knew this would happen."
The only protection under leadership is your personal skill, and very few people are comfortable with that. Management may create a soulless machine, but a lot of people seem comfortable there.
Leadership is about people, not policy. It is about telling people to their faces when they have screwed up and also when they have done well. Leadership is not always superior to management. It is much easier to be a bad leader than a bad manager and it has more effect. It is also easier to be a good leader than a good manager, and that has more effect to.
And that may be part of the difference. Managerial systems are designed so that the cogs are interchangeable. Including the managers. So a manager, whether good or bad, will cause little change. The situation is perfect for those who fear doing something wrong more than they value doing something well.
Maybe it's not such a twist. I was originally puzzled that so many I talk to think of leaders as hard chargers with little regard for others, when leadership is a people skill. Conversely, the words coming out of every HR department I've worked with have all been about valuing the individual, and fairness... and they are responsible for creating and maintaining an inhuman system.
But looked at from the twin perspectives of trying to avoid personal responsibility and avoid personal conflict it does make sense. Thus the people who use the word 'diversity' as a mantra want everyone to look different but think the same. It limits conflict. And I wanted the widest variety of backgrounds on my teams as possible, because people who thought different would come at problems from different angles. More conflict, but we solved some issues.
That's enough typing for now. Teams and committees will have to come later.
Rory Miller's Blog
- Rory Miller's profile
- 130 followers
Rory Miller isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
