Advertisement
Two Very Different Things
Obviously, right? When stated in opposition like that, it's self-evident. And yet, I get enough feedback to tell me it's still fuzzy in most people's heads. Nearly everyone we train shows up looking for the former -- they want to prevent violence from happening to themselves -- while only paying lip service to the latter.
If given the choice, sane people would rather prevent violence than do it to another. This is fine as long as everyone understands the difference between the two.
The Empathy Problem
No one wants violence done to them. Once a person has heard, seen, or unfortunately experienced enough of it, they start looking for answers. How do I keep that from happening to me? What can I do in that situation? These questions would be fine if they were looking at the right side of the equation. The problem is one of empathy -- we naturally look at the guy on the ground, the one getting kicked, or stabbed, or shot. We empathize with the victim, feel his pain, and the questions become about preventing what's happening, rather than owning the situation.
No one looks at that situation and asks the real question: How do I maim, cripple and/or kill the other man? Most sane people will not reflexively see themselves as the victimizer, look at the situation and say, "That guy's obviously got it handled. I want to operate like he does."
Confusion sets in when people believe that violence is a tool to prevent violence -- in other words, that they can maintain their safety by using physical action to prevent the other man from hurting them. Blocking, countering, 'using his energy against him,' etc., are all dangerous conceits that do little more than make us feel good about violence.
They make us feel prepared while wearing the white hat (since we don't stoop to the criminal's level) -- while doing almost nothing to solve the essential problem. They don't do anything to shut off the other man, or otherwise degrade his ability to function. At best such tactics delay the inevitable; at worst they give the other man free time and opportunity to carry out his work. The work of hurting you and shutting you off.
Preventing Violence
I take a lot of heat for constantly wanting to couch the discussion of violence in social, antisocial and asocial contexts. The primary argument I hear is, "Who cares?" The second one is that I must be a simp, because that is not how badasses talk. The funny part is, if most people show up to learn how to prevent violence from happening to them, well, this is the key.
I always thought this stuff was common sense -- don't go looking for it, defuse and de-escalate when given the option, only hurt people when that's the only way out -- and then I meet people who think knocking someone out is the answer to the smart remark, social posturing and territorial disputes. Of course, it makes my hat hover. For those who don't listen, or don't care, I hope they are lucky. Luck is the only thing between them and something really horrible, or, at the very least, life-changing. And not in the good way.
The best way to prevent violence is to not be there. Second-best is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, be calm, and go out of your way to make peace everywhere you go. While on the surface it may seem like a good idea to be intimidating, you never know when this will bite you in the ass.
The primary problem is that the people it works on -- the ones who will see you coming and clear out -- are not the ones you're worried about. The ones you're worried about, the criminal sociopath, will see your intimidation tactics as a challenge, or, indeed, a threat that must be neutralized. In other words, you'll scare away harmless people while simultaneously attracting monsters.
It's important to note that preventing violence has nothing to do with physical action -- unless that action is running away. Otherwise, preventing violence is all about navigating everything that comes before violence. There's nothing you can do once the violence has begun to prevent it. At that point your only option is to be the one doing it.
Doing Violence
This is really simple. It's taking eyes, crushing throats, breaking legs. It's being the successful person in the situation, kicking the man who's down. Instead of worrying about how to prevent violence, you're doing it. You can see how this is at odds with the idea of preventing violence -- doing violence does not prevent violence. This is not the same as attempting to thwart a knife-thrust or keep from getting kicked while down. This is you doing the things you wanted to prevent to the other man. This is focusing on the right side of the equation, the winner's side. And over here, it's pure physical action.
Now you can see where our problem, as instructors, lies -- and maybe even some problems of your own. When people see the man getting stabbed, they want to know how to stop that from happening to themselves, and they assume -- wrongly -- that there is some kind of physical action that can keep them safe from such things. So they are looking for physical training to prevent violence. And there is no such thing.
Because we are looking at different sides of the equation -- they see the man getting stabbed, I see the man doing the stabbing -- the answers don't always fit the question. When someone asks, "What do I do if the man wants to stab me?" and I show them how to take his eye, crush his throat, and break his leg, they are usually aghast at the 'severity' of the action, as well as being uncomfortable since I really didn't do anything about the knife.
When they ask, "How can I prevent him from stabbing me?" and I launch into a discussion of social/anti-social/asocial and mention running away, using your words, letting him have the parking space, etc., they are even more puzzled. What they really want is a way to not get stabbed once the stabbing starts, and there is no such thing.
You can't prevent violence once it's on, and if all you want is to change someone's behavior, violence can't do that. All it does is break down the human body, and shut off the brain. While some of you may want to argue that technically you prevent violence with violence by shutting the other guy off, please remember that that occurs only as a side effect -- the goal must be to break things inside of him and take him to nonfunctional. If the goal is to prevent him from stabbing you, you're at odds with the goal that will actually get that done.
Understanding that what people really want is an easy, painless way of preventing violence from happening, rather than to learn how to be the one doing it, cleared up a lot of misunderstanding for me as an instructor. It's much easier for me to communicate when I know this is the baseline assumption.
From the other side, it's important to make it clear that there is no physical action that makes you safe -- physical action is not the path to safety, it's the path to ruin him. If you want to prevent violence, be smart and use your social skills. But once the violence starts, the only thing that's going to change the situation in your favor is hurting him. Confuse the two at your own peril.
Taken from the TFT website
Written by Chris Ranck-Buhr
Obviously, right? When stated in opposition like that, it's self-evident. And yet, I get enough feedback to tell me it's still fuzzy in most people's heads. Nearly everyone we train shows up looking for the former -- they want to prevent violence from happening to themselves -- while only paying lip service to the latter.
If given the choice, sane people would rather prevent violence than do it to another. This is fine as long as everyone understands the difference between the two.
The Empathy Problem
No one wants violence done to them. Once a person has heard, seen, or unfortunately experienced enough of it, they start looking for answers. How do I keep that from happening to me? What can I do in that situation? These questions would be fine if they were looking at the right side of the equation. The problem is one of empathy -- we naturally look at the guy on the ground, the one getting kicked, or stabbed, or shot. We empathize with the victim, feel his pain, and the questions become about preventing what's happening, rather than owning the situation.
No one looks at that situation and asks the real question: How do I maim, cripple and/or kill the other man? Most sane people will not reflexively see themselves as the victimizer, look at the situation and say, "That guy's obviously got it handled. I want to operate like he does."
Confusion sets in when people believe that violence is a tool to prevent violence -- in other words, that they can maintain their safety by using physical action to prevent the other man from hurting them. Blocking, countering, 'using his energy against him,' etc., are all dangerous conceits that do little more than make us feel good about violence.
They make us feel prepared while wearing the white hat (since we don't stoop to the criminal's level) -- while doing almost nothing to solve the essential problem. They don't do anything to shut off the other man, or otherwise degrade his ability to function. At best such tactics delay the inevitable; at worst they give the other man free time and opportunity to carry out his work. The work of hurting you and shutting you off.
Preventing Violence
I take a lot of heat for constantly wanting to couch the discussion of violence in social, antisocial and asocial contexts. The primary argument I hear is, "Who cares?" The second one is that I must be a simp, because that is not how badasses talk. The funny part is, if most people show up to learn how to prevent violence from happening to them, well, this is the key.
I always thought this stuff was common sense -- don't go looking for it, defuse and de-escalate when given the option, only hurt people when that's the only way out -- and then I meet people who think knocking someone out is the answer to the smart remark, social posturing and territorial disputes. Of course, it makes my hat hover. For those who don't listen, or don't care, I hope they are lucky. Luck is the only thing between them and something really horrible, or, at the very least, life-changing. And not in the good way.
The best way to prevent violence is to not be there. Second-best is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, be calm, and go out of your way to make peace everywhere you go. While on the surface it may seem like a good idea to be intimidating, you never know when this will bite you in the ass.
The primary problem is that the people it works on -- the ones who will see you coming and clear out -- are not the ones you're worried about. The ones you're worried about, the criminal sociopath, will see your intimidation tactics as a challenge, or, indeed, a threat that must be neutralized. In other words, you'll scare away harmless people while simultaneously attracting monsters.
It's important to note that preventing violence has nothing to do with physical action -- unless that action is running away. Otherwise, preventing violence is all about navigating everything that comes before violence. There's nothing you can do once the violence has begun to prevent it. At that point your only option is to be the one doing it.
Doing Violence
This is really simple. It's taking eyes, crushing throats, breaking legs. It's being the successful person in the situation, kicking the man who's down. Instead of worrying about how to prevent violence, you're doing it. You can see how this is at odds with the idea of preventing violence -- doing violence does not prevent violence. This is not the same as attempting to thwart a knife-thrust or keep from getting kicked while down. This is you doing the things you wanted to prevent to the other man. This is focusing on the right side of the equation, the winner's side. And over here, it's pure physical action.
Now you can see where our problem, as instructors, lies -- and maybe even some problems of your own. When people see the man getting stabbed, they want to know how to stop that from happening to themselves, and they assume -- wrongly -- that there is some kind of physical action that can keep them safe from such things. So they are looking for physical training to prevent violence. And there is no such thing.
Because we are looking at different sides of the equation -- they see the man getting stabbed, I see the man doing the stabbing -- the answers don't always fit the question. When someone asks, "What do I do if the man wants to stab me?" and I show them how to take his eye, crush his throat, and break his leg, they are usually aghast at the 'severity' of the action, as well as being uncomfortable since I really didn't do anything about the knife.
When they ask, "How can I prevent him from stabbing me?" and I launch into a discussion of social/anti-social/asocial and mention running away, using your words, letting him have the parking space, etc., they are even more puzzled. What they really want is a way to not get stabbed once the stabbing starts, and there is no such thing.
You can't prevent violence once it's on, and if all you want is to change someone's behavior, violence can't do that. All it does is break down the human body, and shut off the brain. While some of you may want to argue that technically you prevent violence with violence by shutting the other guy off, please remember that that occurs only as a side effect -- the goal must be to break things inside of him and take him to nonfunctional. If the goal is to prevent him from stabbing you, you're at odds with the goal that will actually get that done.
Understanding that what people really want is an easy, painless way of preventing violence from happening, rather than to learn how to be the one doing it, cleared up a lot of misunderstanding for me as an instructor. It's much easier for me to communicate when I know this is the baseline assumption.
From the other side, it's important to make it clear that there is no physical action that makes you safe -- physical action is not the path to safety, it's the path to ruin him. If you want to prevent violence, be smart and use your social skills. But once the violence starts, the only thing that's going to change the situation in your favor is hurting him. Confuse the two at your own peril.
Taken from the TFT website
Written by Chris Ranck-Buhr
posted by:
|
Hartford
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
