What makes MA coaches qualified to teach self defence?

yomchi

Hi Micheal

Combative principles are much simpler in contrast, irregardless of the type of attack the physical application of it is a constant, ie - someone crashes distance and attempts assault.
Combative principles will dictate that the attackers intention be removed through ballistic impact primarily to the head with the result being knock out, knock down or enough of a pause to either follow up or high tail it. Each range is taught with that in mind and therefore each range is drilled accordingly keeping everything gross motor for obvious reasons.

All the best

tallaght01

yomchi wrote: »

You are presuming incorrectly. Irregardless of what the motive is, the mindset or theintention is harm, physical harm. It matters little if the person is hit first before a sexual assault or if they are hit as part of a racially motivated assault - the intention is the same and this misunderstanding is where a lot of the KM schools of thought fall down.

I'm on my way to work, so I don't have time to answer properly, but this is the kind of thing I'm taking about. How do you know what you've said there is true? I could just as easily argue that some type of attackers will run as soon as a person fights back, but some won't. I could say it, but it doesn't make it true. From my (pretty superficial) course on criminal psychology, the motives, determination and "repelability" of rapists, gangbangers and xenophobes are all remarkably different. I don't think KM schools fall down on this issue at all, as they don't deal with it.

yomchi

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm on my way to work, so I don't have time to answer properly, but this is the kind of thing I'm taking about. How do you know what you've said there is true?

Are you doubting that the intention of a sexual attacker or any person violently assaulting another person is to cause physical harm? Because that is what I said, how do I know it's true? It's not algorithms dude .

I could just as easily argue that some type of attackers will run as soon as a person fights back, but some won't. I could say it, but it doesn't make it true.

But it is bloody true. Are you drunk mate? seriously?
There is much chance of anyone running away as they are to stay and continue the assault, I'm not trying to be smart but I can't understand how you don't get that. What other outcomes are there? They certainly won't be beamed up by Scotty. They either finish the assault and satisfy the motive trivial or otherwise or they don't for what ever reason, be that the person fights back, someone intervenes or etc etc..

From my (pretty superficial) course on criminal psychology, the motives, determination and "repelability" of rapists, gangbangers and xenophobes are all remarkably different. I don't think KM schools fall down on this issue at all, as they don't deal with it.

I see your superficial course and I raise you a FETAC course courtesy of Mr Kilroy :cool:

But the word you are looking for is recidivism, and of course the motives are all different as I have already said all of this. What remains constant is the intention which is to cause physical harm which results in the motive being satisfied.

I spend a significant part of my life analysing and generating "empirical" evidence, and I'd be seriously impressed if the available evidence managed to take into account of all the different variables that would be present in an attack situation

.....

I work in healthcare, and have dne a lot of A+E in Johannesburg, where there's some of the highest assault rates on the planet...carjacking, robbery, gang related, sexual assault, and various combinations of the above.

.....

I've also done A+E in Glasgow, where we had the highest knife crime rates in the world at the time. I spoke to patients in detail about their attacks

.....

my (pretty superficial) course on criminal psychology

And...

I still don't get this. At all.

Either you're a fantasist or a bad listener/observer to life, but either way you have enough experience in your own life there to understand the difference between motive and the intention needed to carry it out. Working in that hospital would have helped you understand that people do get hurt in physical assaults, some worse than others and all for different reasons but the results are all the same - physical harm.

In studying recidivism we covered the case study of Jerry Brudos and Thomas Vanda, if you read up on them their cases cover two different motives with the same assaultive intention on their victims.

tallaght01

yomchi wrote: »

But it is bloody true. Are you drunk mate? seriously?


Either you're a fantasist or a bad listener/observer to life

I can ignore the above shyte, on the grounds that you didn't pay any attention to the structure of the sentence you were quoting for the first line :rolleyes:

To address one of your other points, I wasn't talking about recidivism, either. As, in my understanding of that particular topic, through the prison work I'm involved in, it's not usually applied to a situation that's occurring in the here and now. It's about the medium to long term rehabilitation. That's how we talk about it in the prison service, but maybe the SD community use it in a different way. Doesn't really matter either way, I guess, as you know what I'm talking about.

The real point is that you're not answering the question. It's not about whether an attacker wishes to cause physical harm or not. They may be just wanting money, and have no intention of fighting if you fight back, or the opposite may be true. This isn't the central issue.

The point is that you talk about signals these people give off for starters....body language etc. How do SD teachers know how to interpret the body language of a rapist or a xenophobe or a mugger or whatever? How many people have watched all of these types of attackers in action, with their different mindsets, or how many studies have seen analysed the body language of these types of attackers in enough detail to draw conclusions that can be applied at a population level to different groups of victims?

Then, when you interpret the signals, you presumably advise people on what to do. If you're advocating a clatter and run approach, then fair enough. I can see the merit in that. I don't buy the NLP stuff, purely based on anecdote. I've often been in semi stressful situation and, to use your own example, not noticed my phone going off. For example, at the end of a resuscitation I might notice I've a few missed calls that I didn't notice. Of course I'm not focussing on my phone, while an attacker is focussed on their victim. And that may be the difference. Or it may not. What I'm asking is how do SD teachers know it is. How do they know the "brain freeze" thing works.

Then, of course, there's the de-escalation stuff etc. I'm not saying situations can't be de-escalated. I'm asking how you know the proper way to do it. If it's experience, can you genuinely apply those same principles to a tiny lady? Or a meek, timid man? No amount of paper cuttings of old ladiess fighting off a mugger changes the fact that an attacker will look at me differently than an elderly woman and will, in my opinion, react differently to a show of assertiveness, depending on whether it's coming from me or Dame Judy Dench. So how do we apply an individual's experience to a situation involving a person of different age, sex and body size. Again, a youtube video of a girl giving a bloke a clatter sheds no light on this, as the physical side was never the issue.

I just want to know about the interventions, and nothing else. The stuff you tell people to do. The body language and verbal clues to look for. The de-escalation strategies, the awareness stuff. How do you know it works? What level of evidence is there for its effectiveness?

I may be a simpleton, but I know when someone has lots of evidence to hand, they usually have no trouble in telling me what it is. I'm willing to be wrong. I can live with being a wrong, boozing simpleton. But so far, no one has ever explained this to me without getting personal and answering the questions they would like me to be asking, rather than what I'm actually asking.

Michael O Leary

yomchi wrote: »

Combative principles will dictate that the attackers intention be removed through ballistic impact primarily to the head with the result being knock out, knock down or enough of a pause to either follow up or high tail it. Each range is taught with that in mind and therefore each range is drilled accordingly keeping everything gross motor for obvious reasons.

Combative principles Wing Tsun principles will dictate that the attackers intention be removed through ballistic impact primarily to the head with the result being knock out, knock down or enough of a pause to either follow up or high tail it. Each range is taught with that in mind and therefore each range is drilled accordingly keeping everything gross motor for obvious reasons.

Thats why I like talking to people like you. I am not interested in trying to exploit the differences in what we do by "trying" to compare the best in what I do with the worst in what you do. I would rather examine the things both of our disciplines have in common and put any differences in context.

paxo

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm not talking abut the physical aspects of it. I'm talking about the other stuff.
There's lots of groups now claiming to teach things like "awareness" and "de-escalation" etc etc. We've all seen them.

They're starting to piss me off, to be honest, as I doubt there's much evidene that these techniques work, and I doubt that most of the instructors are doing anything but teaching verbatim from a course or a book.

Am I missing something here? I've had a few girls at work asking about them, and I basically told them that I'd be as qualified to give them self defence tips as most of these guys (and I would be very unqualified to give them self defence tips).

Does even a law enforcement background make you an expert in avoiding trouble? Presumably the experience of a copper walking through an estate at night is very different from that of a young girl walking though the same estate.

My gut feeling is that it's a load of mickey, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Hi Tallagh01
IMO these skills do work, but and it's a big but like any skill they work best for those who practice them regularly or need to develop them because of the environment they are in. As an extreme example I would guess that soldiers in a combat zone very quickly develop a high level of awareness. In this type of situation they would function in a state of hyperarousal. However once the stimulus is removed they would gradually return to their previous levels.

Jeff Cooper the American handgun shooting expert ( WW 2 & Korean war veteran ) developed a coloured coded approach ie White, Yellow, Orange and Red. He viewed this as a level of awareness or mindset rather than a specific response to danger

In White you are unprepared and unready to take lethal action. If you are attacked in White you will probably die unless your adversary is totally inept.

In Yellow you bring yourself to the understanding that your life may be in danger and that you may have to do something about it.

In Orange you have determined upon a specific adversary and are prepared to take action which may result in his death, but you are not in a lethal mode.
In Red you are in a lethal mode and will shoot if circumstances warrant.
I mention his war experience as presumably his experience influenced his thinking

Marc MacYoung has some interesting things to say on the topics of awareness/avoidance/self defence

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defense.htm#aggression

I hold the view that police are required to do the opposite to avoiding trouble, in fact they are sent in to deal with it. However based on my own experience they are usually good at deescalating aggressive situations. IMO they are able to use their deescalation skills effectively because if the situation goes pear shaped they have access to weapons, restraints, other officers and they are usually young and reasonable fit blokes.

Speaking for myself I think a little common sense goes a long way to avoiding a lot of trouble

Cheers
Paxo

yomchi

tallaght01 wrote: »

through the prison work I'm involved in, it's not usually applied to a situation that's occurring in the here and now. It's about the medium to long term rehabilitation. That's how we talk about it in the prison service, but maybe the SD community use it in a different way. Doesn't really matter either way, I guess, as you know what I'm talking about.

No, recidivism can be defined as repetition of criminal or other antisocial behavior governed by motives. What prison work are you involved in? I'd be interested in asking you some questions about some research I am currently involved in. Would that be ok? Genuinely.

The real point is that you're not answering the question. It's not about whether an attacker wishes to cause physical harm or not. if you fight back, or the opposite may be true. This isn't the central issue.

I answered your questions many times.

They may be just wanting money, and have no intention of fighting

These are generally termed as chuggers and or beggers.

The point is that you talk about signals these people give off for starters....body language etc. How do SD teachers know how to interpret the body language of a rapist or a xenophobe or a mugger or whatever?

I see now where you are confused. Don't confuse behavioral patterns which can be observed immediately post conflict and the predatory nature of sexual deviants. I'll take a minute to explain the differences.

Pre conflict behavioral patterns will include some obvious and not so obvious indications as to whether the subject has violent intention towards you again the motive may differ but the intention is a constant. The adrenal effect on the subject will provide some 'give aways' such as - immediate and focused tunnel vision on you, the inability to but words together and hence resulting in single syllable use, the most obvious however is a shift in weight as they pull their strong side behind as they line you up. There are many more obvious ones but these all relate to in this instance to an aggressive subject in front of you.

Human communication consists of 93 percent body language and paralinguistic cues which refers to the non-verbal elements of communication used to modify meaning and convey emotion. Paralanguage may be expressed consciously or unconsciously, and it includes the pitch, volume, and, in some cases, intonation of speech (Borgg circa 1960)

Albert Mehrabain suggested in his studies;
that it comes to two conclusions. Firstly, that there are basically three elements in any face-to-face communication:

* Words
* Tone of voice
* Nonverbal behaviour (e.g Facial expression)

Secondly, the non-verbal elements are particularly important for communicating feelings and attitude, especially when they are incongruent: If words disagree with the tone of voice and nonverbal behaviour, people tend to believe the tonality and nonverbal behaviour.

It is emphatically not the case that non-verbal elements in all senses convey the bulk of the message, even though this is how his conclusions are frequently misinterpreted. For instance, when delivering a lecture or presentation, the textual content of the lecture is delivered entirely verbally, but the non-verbal cues are very important in conveying the speaker's attitude towards what they are saying, notably their belief or conviction.
[edit] 7%-38%-55% rule

Understanding as best as possible the motives of sexual predators are different. Again there are several studies available and all the case studies I have covered thus far carry similar traits. - (1971). Silent Messages (1st ed.).

Sexual deviants or predators will operate relevantly to their motives. There was one case study which I have here which tells of a woman who was being unconsciously groomed by a work colleague. Her colleague started to make sexual references to her. Her timid response to him indicated to him that he could continue with his probing, he moved onto pinching her behind and then rubbing himself off her as he past her in the office. She remained timid and embarrassed by his behavior but what it told him was that he was going to get away with it, what she didn't realise is that she was being sexually harrassed.The result came at the christmas party at the office when drunk he forced himself on her fondled her breasts and tried forcefully to put her hand down his trousers. The build up to this happening was carried out over months of probing.

Contrast that to a similar situation which happened in Edinburgh in 2007;

The same sexual probing was being used on a woman with a different mindset. While she didn't mind the sexual innuendo and participated in it due to her personality, when her colleague made an unwanted move on her (he put his hands on her side under her arms to 'move her out of the way' but his fingers touched her breasts purposely) she reacted with a strong verbal boundary in which she commanded in a loud manner allowing everyone in the office to hear: " Don't you dare take liberties Simon, the next time you put your hands on me there you're going to regret it"

Right there and then her verbal boundary which would have been congruent with her demeanor and posture told him he can go no further while bringing the attention of the entire office to the carry on. He crawled up his own behind, needless to say.

So there are sure signals at play, whether the motive be sexual or otherwise a victim is carefully selected. The fact the word predator is used would suggest that there is a prey to be had.

Then, when you interpret the signals, you presumably advise people on what to do. If you're advocating a clatter and run approach, then fair enough. I can see the merit in that.

Run at all costs if you can yes.

I don't buy the NLP stuff, purely based on anecdote. I've often been in semi stressful situation and, to use your own example, not noticed my phone going off. For example, at the end of a resuscitation I might notice I've a few missed calls that I didn't notice.

You've taken my example out of context and inserted your own, the two are not comparable.

What I'm asking is how do SD teachers know it is. How do they know the "brain freeze" thing works.

Milton H. Erickson (Psychologist) suggested;
A confused person has their conscious mind busy and occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things. A confused person is in a trance of their own making - and therefore goes readily into that trance without resistance. Confusion might be created by ambiguous words, complex or endless sentences, pattern interruption or a myriad of other techniques to incite transderivational searches. Transderivational is a fundamental part of human language and cognitive processing. Arguably, every word or utterance a person hears, for example, and everything they see or feel and take note of, results in a very brief trance while TDS is carried out to establish a contextual meaning for it

So rather than take my word for it, you'd probably get better answers from experts in the field. Again studies are widely available.

Then, of course, there's the de-escalation stuff etc. I'm not saying situations can't be de-escalated. I'm asking how you know the proper way to do it. If it's experience, can you genuinely apply those same principles to a tiny lady? Or a meek, timid man?

You see de-escalation needs to be used in context, I think in respect to your position your not putting any of these concepts into the correct context.

If someone is intent on causing you harm, they will endeavour to cause you harm whatever the cost. Violence for violence sake. Take another example where deescalation might work - you've spilled a drink over someone in a night club or pub, the other person is now very agitated whether you like it or not your response conscious or otherwise will dictate the persons next move.

You could put your hands up apologise profusely act genuinely concerned and offer to buy another drink, or you could seem uninterested because you look like a sap in front of your mates, say sorry but not say it genuinely enough to deescalate the other persons rising temper. This is a very general example made simple to get the point across. I have however given you an example of a traffic move I made that pissed this guy off, I could given him the finger which may have resulted in him getting out of his car, but I decided I am in the wrong presented an open palm and made sure he knew I said sorry, he was happy with that.

So where does it all fit? In context. De-escalation is not a skill that you teach someone because everyone has used it in all sorts of different ways in all different walks of life. What we do say in SP circles is that it is an option that you have before anything goes physical, if you are teaching how to perform in-conflict without presenting options to avoid it well then in my opinion you are being reckless.

So how do we apply an individual's experience to a situation involving a person of different age, sex and body size. Again, a youtube video of a girl giving a bloke a clatter sheds no light on this, as the physical side was never the issue.

Again you seem to have the context wrong with respect. You did question physical side because you asked was pre-emption workable. I said pre-emption meant intercepting first with a strike, so remove the label and boil it back to hitting which means your question was "does hitting work" - I posted two examples of it working in two different situations. You can see where understanding behavioural cues can become useful.

So how do we apply an individual's experience to a situation involving a person of different age, sex and body size

You seem fixed on the physicality of the individual, again that's why I posted the news paper with report of timid old ladies being able to fend for themselves, so can it be done - obviously.

I just want to know about the interventions, and nothing else. The stuff you tell people to do. The body language and verbal clues to look for. The de-escalation strategies, the awareness stuff. How do you know it works? What level of evidence is there for its effectiveness?

Well I hope I have explained it as best as I could, like I said at the very beginning it's very hard to get all of this across in a forum. I don't tell people to do anything you can only provide options, workable options taken from past experiences of my own and many many others. As for evidence as to whether awareness works.. seriously. If it didn't work people would be killed en masse by traffic.

Listen I tried my best to answer your queries I apologise for the smartness of a previous post and in that apology I was hoping you would allow me to discuss your own experiences in the prison service and the health service in which you have worked internationally. You sit on some great real world experiences and I'd appreciate exploring them. Would that be ok?

ncef

In reading some of the replys, im probably wasting my my time getting involved in this conversation. So ill finish with this.
Ive given you my definition of Self Defence.
On the second point, you should take time to visit one of the main Dublin hospitals early on a Sat, Sun, or Monday morning, and it might open your eyes.
Thirdly, anyone that practices anything repeatedly over a long period of time has a better chance of reacting in the way that they've been training, than someone that dose'nt.
But maybe your referring to instant Self Defence Courses.(Learn how to defend yourself in 6 weeks, or 8 weeks! )
Proficiency in anything is dependant on how often you pratice.

Maybe your very young or have lived a very sheltered life, but i've seen the results of bottle and heavy weapon attacks across the head, and not so long ago a female student of mine was dragged in a lane while waiting for a bus on a main street in Dublin at 11.30 on a Friday evening.
The techniques you mentioned are ones that would most likely be used by those that are trained, who may find themselves in the situations i've just mentioned.
P.S. Although the female student of mine suffered a degree of trauma, and wont frequent that bus stop ever again, she was'nt injured (except for some skin damage on her hands) and was able to call a taxi to get home. She did what she had done in training even though she was'nt aware of what she was doing at the time. She just remembers the attacker letting go and hitting the ground and her running away as fast as she could.
Regards
Daithi

Doug Cartel

ncef wrote: »

On the second point, you should take time to visit one of the main Dublin hospitals early on a Sat, Sun, or Monday morning, and it might open your eyes.

Why don't you give me a breakdown of what that's like? You know with numbers and stuff. I've heard they're full of eejits locked out of their scull who had accidents or were picking fights. Maybe if the locked eejits knew karate, they'd be sorted.

yomchi

Hi Daithí,

ncef wrote: »

In reading some of the replys, im probably wasting my my time getting involved in this conversation. So ill finish with this.
Ive given you my definition of Self Defence.

I read your definition which was...

My definition of a self defence situation is when a urgent and instant need arises for you to react to a threat, and de-escalation should never play a part. The hospitals are full every weekend, usually of people who were on the recieving end of unprovoked attacks, and i suspect all untrained in self defence. An example of many self defence techniques that we would regularly pratice, would be against straight punches,hooking punches,kicks and punches,knife attacks,overhead club attacks,one and two hand lapel grabs,bear hugs from front and rear (arms pinned and arms free),shoulder grabs,front and rear chokes,arm locks,head locks, hair grab etc. 300 approx.

So you've been trained to react to threats with an array of 300 different reactions. I then asked...

have you ever wondered how in a 3 second tits up 'oh ****' moment which one of those 300 techniques you're going to respond with?

Not to mention that premeditated action will ALWAYS beat reaction rendering any form of traditional blocking completely useless. Either way I'd like to hear your response to that approx 300 technique conundrum.

On the second point, you should take time to visit one of the main Dublin hospitals early on a Sat, Sun, or Monday morning, and it might open your eyes.

Firstly, I would like to genuinely accept your offer to visit the hospital some evening (I'm assuming you also work in a hospital somewhere) as you know you can't just walk in off the street and roam around the A&E of any hospital. So if you are genuine then so am I, I would love to. What it might open my eyes to I'm not so sure as I have stated again and again and again throughout this thread that people do get physically harmed in assault situations. So are we up for that or not?

Thirdly, anyone that practices anything repeatedly over a long period of time has a better chance of reacting in the way that they've been training, than someone that dose'nt.

I never said they didn't and in fact I would whole heartedly agree as it is something I promote in my own training. Could you point me to the piece where I said something in the contrary to this?

But maybe your referring to instant Self Defence Courses.(Learn how to defend yourself in 6 weeks, or 8 weeks! )

Umm, no I'm not.

Maybe your very young or have lived a very sheltered life, but i've seen the results of bottle and heavy weapon attacks across the head

33 last Thursday dude, and not one ye's wished me a happy birthday
Sheltered life? We all have our crosses to bear matey.

not so long ago a female student of mine was dragged in a lane while waiting for a bus on a main street in Dublin at 11.30 on a Friday evening.
The techniques you mentioned are ones that would most likely be used by those that are trained, who may find themselves in the situations i've just mentioned.
P.S. Although the female student of mine suffered a degree of trauma, and wont frequent that bus stop ever again, she was'nt injured (except for some skin damage on her hands) and was able to call a taxi to get home. She did what she had done in training even though she was'nt aware of what she was doing at the time. She just remembers the attacker letting go and hitting the ground and her running away as fast as she could.

This is an excellent example of everything I've spoken about, thank you for posting it.
Paxo mentioned in his post this;

Speaking for myself I think a little common sense goes a long way to avoiding a lot of trouble

And I couldn't agree more, but the only problem with common sense is that it ain't that common as depicted in the story of this young woman who, alone on a Friday night decided she was going to stand at a bus stop at 11.30pm (maybe not even knowing if the last bus had left) adjacent to a lane way.

Now in my first few posts I mentioned this;

Motives dictate tactics, tactics will dictate proxemics but one thing remains a constant and that is intention

So this guys motives we don't know as she got away, his tactics were to wait in an environment that suited his intentions, his intention was to do damage (I assume he wasn't taking her on a dance) proximity wise he got close enough to put his hands on her and drag her, pretty confident in the fact that no one would see, however by the sounds of it he was trying to drag her to a secondary location. While your friend was completely unaware or ignorant of the environment, as well as the time and the fact that she was alone which unfortunately led to her walking straight into the environment of her attacker.

After all of that she decides she's going to get a taxi. See where common sense isn't always available?

I'd be keen to get the details of this attack, did she ring a taxi first or the Gardaí? Presumably she would have informed the Taxi driver of what had happened, the taxi driver should then have reported the fact that he had a woman in his car who had "already" being subject to an attempted rape/murder (we don't know) which covers his own arse in case she's a loon.

So assuming all of this, there must a report on it somewhere? Woman don't get dragged up lane ways on Dublin's main streets without a report of it somewhere - the reason I'm asking is that case studies like these are excellent for presenting examples of how being unaware of the differences of dark lane ways at bus stops at 11.30pm at night and, the comfort of a taxi home.

Can I come visit your hospital?

Michael O Leary

yomchi wrote: »

Hi Daithí,

33 last Thursday dude, and not one ye's wished me a happy birthday

Happy Birthday Dude!

yomchi

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Happy Birthday Dude!

Gentleman as ever Michael

Flygimp

yomchi wrote: »

Hi mate,
It's a bit of weird question tbh. There are no secrets or special training needed to try talk your way out of a situation. I remember making a silly traffic maneuver one time and pissing the guy off to the right of me, he blew his horn and and waved his fist with expletives, I raised my hand up and said - "sorry mate!" to which he just waved its ok - that's just a very simple real life example of de-escalating a situation, or in other words not bringing it to the next level where physical confrontation is necessary. So as you can see, it's not really a special nor secret attribute, however it is under utilised by a lot people and many wouldn't see it as an option in any conscious sense.

Soft skills like awareness and de-escalation are taught a lot more at places that teach self protection concepts which is a lot more rounded than your normal self defence courses that you attend at your local leisure centre, where you're taught how 'react' to an assault already in motion.

In self protection circles there is an emphasis on awareness and avoidance, at the end of the day that is good self protection skills. Awareness is a lot more than just being alert and switched on and I don't mean in any paranoid sense. It can cover understanding body language and the MO of a potential attacker, again nothing mystical about any of that and nothing that can't be found by doing some research. Does it work? That depends on you, but there are certain traits that will be noticeable and certain scenarios that will unfold in certain ways, again studying these and talking to people who have carried them out is one way of understanding them.

Why it pisses you off I'm not sure. If you're interested you can pop along to a class sometime if you like as it's a pretty big topic which won't get much justice done to it on the forum.

As for qualifications, where would that come in and who would qualify you? You can add that to any martial system btw.

yomchi you wouldn't be a fellow kiwi by any chance... with the jake the musk avatar...? Not many of us in the suburbs of Galway

As for self defence I grew up with the bro's in Auckland - polynesian style no time for talking when they start clicking after a few beers ready to take your head off and beat the wife... just enough time to survive!

Self defence = street wise with quick fists and brains. All this **** with the for arms - when punching power comes from the shoulders following through on the balance of the hips in close quarters...
When it comes to it... always keeps your arms free in a pub or night club. Be aware of your peripherals. If any one comes into your personal space that is not family or a loved one make sure your feet a pivoted and your looking at the four inches behind the skull of the intruder to follow through on with the first jab and follow through with the right or left hook depending on your preference.
Just don't talk, plenty of time afterwards to bleet.

yomchi

Afraid not my friend, I am however a true fan of you guys. Warriors all

Forest Master

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Combative principles Wing Tsun principles will dictate.............

Yeah, I'd love to see any of these moves work in a real situation:

Barry.Oglesby

If you need to keep your wits about you or your arms free in a pub, then you're in the wrong fvcking pub end of story.

Flygimp

yomchi wrote: »

Afraid not my friend, I am however a true fan of you guys. Warriors all

No worries yonchi... we'll call you an honorary kiwi any way;)


Would you be able to give a 35 year old kiwi with two lovely Irish kids some advise all the same yomchi.

I'm living in Galway. I grew up with rugby, cricket and boxing. I'm 6 foot 3 and 16 stone and street wise. I know how to throw a combination of punches and keep my feet in balance and know for a tall person your weakest link is your legs... BUT these days I really would love to take a self defence course or something similar for the craic and fitness and to meet friends... etc... Could you recommend something for an old guy like me who has nothing to prove apart from having a beer and waring down the size of his spare tyre?

Cheers,

Brent.

SorGan

Flygimp wrote: »

No worries yonchi... we'll call you an honorary kiwi any way;)


Would you be able to give a 35 year old kiwi with two lovely Irish kids some advise all the same yomchi.

I'm living in Galway. I grew up with rugby, cricket and boxing. I'm 6 foot 3 and 16 stone and street wise. I know how to throw a combination of punches and keep my feet in balance and know for a tall person your weakest link is your legs... BUT these days I really would love to take a self defence course or something similar for the craic and fitness and to meet friends... etc... Could you recommend something for an old guy like me who has nothing to prove apart from having a beer and waring down the size of his spare tyre?

Cheers,

Brent.

judo...cant go wrong:)

Flygimp

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

If you need to keep your wits about you or your arms free in a pub, then you're in the wrong fvcking pub end of story.

Agreed in a perfect world! But Barry I'm sure if the sh*t hits the fan there's certain mates you'd like watching your back... god knows we've all been there. I was always lucky my best mate was Fijian, 6' 4' and in the NZ armed defenders squad, only thing you'd see with the lights out was his eyes and that's the last thing you'd see...

yomchi

Flygimp wrote: »

No worries yonchi... we'll call you an honorary kiwi any way;)


Would you be able to give a 35 year old kiwi with two lovely Irish kids some advise all the same yomchi.

I'm living in Galway. I grew up with rugby, cricket and boxing. I'm 6 foot 3 and 16 stone and street wise. I know how to throw a combination of punches and keep my feet in balance and know for a tall person your weakest link is your legs... BUT these days I really would love to take a self defence course or something similar for the craic and fitness and to meet friends... etc... Could you recommend something for an old guy like me who has nothing to prove apart from having a beer and waring down the size of his spare tyre?

Cheers,

Brent.

Maybe a bridge club or something?
Chances are the last thing you need to know is how to protect yourself. You are natural built for Judo though and there's nothing like sport training to wear of any spare tyre!

tallaght01

yomchi wrote: »

No, recidivism can be defined as repetition of criminal or other antisocial behavior governed by motives. What prison work are you involved in? I'd be interested in asking you some questions about some research I am currently involved in. Would that be ok? Genuinely.



I answered your questions many times.



These are generally termed as chuggers and or beggers.



I see now where you are confused. Don't confuse behavioral patterns which can be observed immediately post conflict and the predatory nature of sexual deviants. I'll take a minute to explain the differences.

Pre conflict behavioral patterns will include some obvious and not so obvious indications as to whether the subject has violent intention towards you again the motive may differ but the intention is a constant. The adrenal effect on the subject will provide some 'give aways' such as - immediate and focused tunnel vision on you, the inability to but words together and hence resulting in single syllable use, the most obvious however is a shift in weight as they pull their strong side behind as they line you up. There are many more obvious ones but these all relate to in this instance to an aggressive subject in front of you.

Human communication consists of 93 percent body language and paralinguistic cues which refers to the non-verbal elements of communication used to modify meaning and convey emotion. Paralanguage may be expressed consciously or unconsciously, and it includes the pitch, volume, and, in some cases, intonation of speech (Borgg circa 1960)

Albert Mehrabain suggested in his studies;
that it comes to two conclusions. Firstly, that there are basically three elements in any face-to-face communication:

* Words
* Tone of voice
* Nonverbal behaviour (e.g Facial expression)

Secondly, the non-verbal elements are particularly important for communicating feelings and attitude, especially when they are incongruent: If words disagree with the tone of voice and nonverbal behaviour, people tend to believe the tonality and nonverbal behaviour.

It is emphatically not the case that non-verbal elements in all senses convey the bulk of the message, even though this is how his conclusions are frequently misinterpreted. For instance, when delivering a lecture or presentation, the textual content of the lecture is delivered entirely verbally, but the non-verbal cues are very important in conveying the speaker's attitude towards what they are saying, notably their belief or conviction.
[edit] 7%-38%-55% rule

Understanding as best as possible the motives of sexual predators are different. Again there are several studies available and all the case studies I have covered thus far carry similar traits. - (1971). Silent Messages (1st ed.).

Sexual deviants or predators will operate relevantly to their motives. There was one case study which I have here which tells of a woman who was being unconsciously groomed by a work colleague. Her colleague started to make sexual references to her. Her timid response to him indicated to him that he could continue with his probing, he moved onto pinching her behind and then rubbing himself off her as he past her in the office. She remained timid and embarrassed by his behavior but what it told him was that he was going to get away with it, what she didn't realise is that she was being sexually harrassed.The result came at the christmas party at the office when drunk he forced himself on her fondled her breasts and tried forcefully to put her hand down his trousers. The build up to this happening was carried out over months of probing.

Contrast that to a similar situation which happened in Edinburgh in 2007;

The same sexual probing was being used on a woman with a different mindset. While she didn't mind the sexual innuendo and participated in it due to her personality, when her colleague made an unwanted move on her (he put his hands on her side under her arms to 'move her out of the way' but his fingers touched her breasts purposely) she reacted with a strong verbal boundary in which she commanded in a loud manner allowing everyone in the office to hear: " Don't you dare take liberties Simon, the next time you put your hands on me there you're going to regret it"

Right there and then her verbal boundary which would have been congruent with her demeanor and posture told him he can go no further while bringing the attention of the entire office to the carry on. He crawled up his own behind, needless to say.

So there are sure signals at play, whether the motive be sexual or otherwise a victim is carefully selected. The fact the word predator is used would suggest that there is a prey to be had.



Run at all costs if you can yes.



You've taken my example out of context and inserted your own, the two are not comparable.



Milton H. Erickson (Psychologist) suggested;
A confused person has their conscious mind busy and occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things. A confused person is in a trance of their own making - and therefore goes readily into that trance without resistance. Confusion might be created by ambiguous words, complex or endless sentences, pattern interruption or a myriad of other techniques to incite transderivational searches. Transderivational is a fundamental part of human language and cognitive processing. Arguably, every word or utterance a person hears, for example, and everything they see or feel and take note of, results in a very brief trance while TDS is carried out to establish a contextual meaning for it

So rather than take my word for it, you'd probably get better answers from experts in the field. Again studies are widely available.



You see de-escalation needs to be used in context, I think in respect to your position your not putting any of these concepts into the correct context.

If someone is intent on causing you harm, they will endeavour to cause you harm whatever the cost. Violence for violence sake. Take another example where deescalation might work - you've spilled a drink over someone in a night club or pub, the other person is now very agitated whether you like it or not your response conscious or otherwise will dictate the persons next move.

You could put your hands up apologise profusely act genuinely concerned and offer to buy another drink, or you could seem uninterested because you look like a sap in front of your mates, say sorry but not say it genuinely enough to deescalate the other persons rising temper. This is a very general example made simple to get the point across. I have however given you an example of a traffic move I made that pissed this guy off, I could given him the finger which may have resulted in him getting out of his car, but I decided I am in the wrong presented an open palm and made sure he knew I said sorry, he was happy with that.

So where does it all fit? In context. De-escalation is not a skill that you teach someone because everyone has used it in all sorts of different ways in all different walks of life. What we do say in SP circles is that it is an option that you have before anything goes physical, if you are teaching how to perform in-conflict without presenting options to avoid it well then in my opinion you are being reckless.



Again you seem to have the context wrong with respect. You did question physical side because you asked was pre-emption workable. I said pre-emption meant intercepting first with a strike, so remove the label and boil it back to hitting which means your question was "does hitting work" - I posted two examples of it working in two different situations. You can see where understanding behavioural cues can become useful.



You seem fixed on the physicality of the individual, again that's why I posted the news paper with report of timid old ladies being able to fend for themselves, so can it be done - obviously.



Well I hope I have explained it as best as I could, like I said at the very beginning it's very hard to get all of this across in a forum. I don't tell people to do anything you can only provide options, workable options taken from past experiences of my own and many many others. As for evidence as to whether awareness works.. seriously. If it didn't work people would be killed en masse by traffic.

Listen I tried my best to answer your queries I apologise for the smartness of a previous post and in that apology I was hoping you would allow me to discuss your own experiences in the prison service and the health service in which you have worked internationally. You sit on some great real world experiences and I'd appreciate exploring them. Would that be ok?

I guess my issue is with A) the gaps in the "evidence chain" and the quality of the evidence.

The evidence chain is what we talk about in a multi-factorial, complex interaction, with significant variables, like an attack. You need evidence for each link of the chain that informs your thinking. Or, if that's not possible, you need good evidence for the final link.

What I've seen above is "expert opinion" and case-studies. Both of these tyes of investigation are very low down in the "hierarchy of evidence". Though this has a degree of flexibility when we're not looking solely at an intervention. And the hierarchy is somewhat different in sociology research,a d this stuff sort of falls down somewhere in the middle of biological/psychology and sociology/anthropology. But at the very least, a decent analysis of this area would require a wide-ranging thematic analysis. These are high standards. Sure they are. But when we're telling people to use these techniques in life or death situations, then the onus should be on us to have some really hardcore evidence.

The evidence in the chain above is inconsistent in it's quality. There's lots of research on the mindset of a killer, or a rapist. Less so on the mindset of a "common criminal", but it does exist. There's research on motivation, and this is important to those who rehabilitate prisoners etc. But when it comes to the body language of a rapist or a killer "in the moment" I've never seen anything decent. I've seen some stuff on witness reports a long time ago from victims, but recall bias makes the reliability of this problematic.

Then we get to the final link of the chain. This is where the evidence seems to be really lacking. I've done some (admittedly limited) database searching through the criminology research and I can't find anything about effective interventions to stop an attack. Sure we an say to somebody to shout and scream when their work colleague gropes them, rather than sit there and take it. Most women would, IMO, realise this. But the question is how do we give them the sills and confidence to act on it. I can't find anything on this, though I appreciate there's some data out there on individual programmes improving women's assertiveness. Do we know the Edinburgh example would have worked in the environment here in oz where a woman was being harrassed by many of her male colleagues, which became highly publicised? Do strategies like that only work in a sympathetic environment? What if there was no one else around? Who knows. Not me, anyway.

So, this is what I see self defence classes as being.....people taking some of the limited evidence and filling in the gaps themselves. That's fine sometimes, but I think when we're dealing with the potential wellbeing of people, then that's not enough.

I know the poster "Paxo" in real life, and have always been impressed with his knowledge (and skill) when it comes to martial arts. But, in this case, I don't really rate the guy he linked to. I think his "profile of a rapist" bit is A) falsely reassuring and misleading. It should really read "profile of the rapists who have been caught".

Excuse my focus on the rapist element. Although it's a rare enough occurrence I have a professional interest in sexual assault (though mostly in developing country settings). I feel strongly that the best thing we can tell potential victims is that we honestly don't know much about the profile of sexual attackers, and we don't know a lot of about what deters them. And we definitely don't know what works in terms of empowering women to put strategies into action when it all goes down.

To answer your question about prisons, my involvement and interest is in prisoner health, as opposed to their psychology, so I'm probaby not much use to you in that regard, though I'd be happy to share anything with you that I do know. The recidivism definition is alien to me, too. I prison health, we use it to talk about re-offending (especially for psych patients) and failure of addiction therapies. I'm not sure that continuing to attack someone after they've mounted a defence, as it's still the same offence. But that isn't really important.

What I would really like to see, in conclusion, is for the dept of justice in each country to take on this evidence deficit in trying to give their people advice on avoiding trouble. They have the raw data, but it doesn't seem to get analysed.

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

What I would really like to see, in conclusion, is for the dept of justice in each country to take on this evidence deficit in trying to give their people advice on avoiding trouble. .

I think the ability to learn to avoid trouble is environmental and a hard thing to teach, i see it like learning a new language, you can learn the words but not always understand the meaning until you immerse yourself in it, i find people with a natural fighting spirit(switched on) get it quicker than people without, i have stood with lumps and ladies, at times i have been very surprised at who had my back, so i have learned not to judge by size, I'd have someone with fighting spirit over a trained fighter without, someone with both then happy days .

I see the ability to cause grief and be a predator is environmental also and they have been at it for along time till they have workout what works best for them, they don't seem to follow any typical trend in my experience, so it would be hard thing to guard against, sorry if i have repeated anything in the clever posts but it went a bit over my head:D

yomchi

The evidence chain is what we talk about in a multi-factorial, complex interaction, with significant variables, like an attack. You need evidence for each link of the chain that informs your thinking. Or, if that's not possible, you need good evidence for the final link.

What I've seen above is "expert opinion" and case-studies. Both of these tyes of investigation are very low down in the "hierarchy of evidence". Though this has a degree of flexibility when we're not looking solely at an intervention. And the hierarchy is somewhat different in sociology research,a d this stuff sort of falls down somewhere in the middle of biological/psychology and sociology/anthropology. But at the very least, a decent analysis of this area would require a wide-ranging thematic analysis. These are high standards. Sure they are. But when we're telling people to use these techniques in life or death situations, then the onus should be on us to have some really hardcore evidence.

You could attribute this paragraph to anything and everything under the sun including the need for hardcore evidence to say that the physical techniques taught for self defence actually work, which might be a question you should pose to your Krav Maga teacher. Personally I like to rely on real world examples.
What you need to define is your definition of what 'hardcore evidence' is. Are you really saying that we need thematic analysis that calming a situation down can actually happen?

What I've seen above is "expert opinion" and case-studies. Both of these tyes of investigation are very low down in the "hierarchy of evidence". Though this has a degree of flexibility when we're not looking solely at an intervention. And the hierarchy is somewhat different in sociology research,a d this stuff sort of falls down somewhere in the middle of biological/psychology and sociology/anthropology. But at the very least, a decent analysis of this area would require a wide-ranging thematic analysis. These are high standards. Sure they are. But when we're telling people to use these techniques in life or death situations, then the onus should be on us to have some really hardcore evidence.

You see we could hide behind the need for a hierarchy of evidence or we could bypass pedantic issues and go straight to the countless millions of real life examples of real people in real situations in everyday life. When Kubricks ape started to use that piece of bone as a tool, the other apes realised something very important - "If he can do it, so can I" a concept known as conscious modeling.

Again, I don't tell anyone to use certain techniques we do however discuss options as that's all they are. You can't specifically teach someone the skill of de-escalation but can provide a format of how it might work, what to do and what not to do. Richard Demitri came up with the following format, if you are attempting to calm a potential violent person down well then you should steer away from such language and body language that could;

T - Threaten
A - Argue
C - Challenge
O - Order
S - Shame

Again, all options.

There's lots of research on the mindset of a killer, or a rapist. Less so on the mindset of a "common criminal", but it does exist. There's research on motivation, and this is important to those who rehabilitate prisoners etc. But when it comes to the body language of a rapist or a killer "in the moment" I've never seen anything decent. I've seen some stuff on witness reports a long time ago from victims, but recall bias makes the reliability of this problematic

Mate it's very frustrating, you haven't read anything I've posted. Seriously. Please refer back to the post you have quoted and see where I deliberately separated the parts you were being confused by. The parts were the body language of a potentially violent person within talking range of you and the modus operandi of sexual predators/killers etc etc.

Then we get to the final link of the chain. This is where the evidence seems to be really lacking. I've done some (admittedly limited) database searching through the criminology research and I can't find anything about effective interventions to stop an attack. Sure we an say to somebody to shout and scream when their work colleague gropes them, rather than sit there and take it. Most women would, IMO, realise this. But the question is how do we give them the sills and confidence to act on it. I can't find anything on this, though I appreciate there's some data out there on individual programmes improving women's assertiveness. Do we know the Edinburgh example would have worked in the environment here in oz where a woman was being harrassed by many of her male colleagues, which became highly publicised? Do strategies like that only work in a sympathetic environment? What if there was no one else around? Who knows. Not me, anyway.

I'd be very keen on seeing that research on criminology would you be happy to post it up here or email it to me?

You don't have to look far for examples of how someone managed to stop an attack. Our friend ncef posted this up;

not so long ago a female student of mine was dragged in a lane while waiting for a bus on a main street in Dublin at 11.30 on a Friday evening.
The techniques you mentioned are ones that would most likely be used by those that are trained, who may find themselves in the situations i've just mentioned.
P.S. Although the female student of mine suffered a degree of trauma, and wont frequent that bus stop ever again, she was'nt injured (except for some skin damage on her hands) and was able to call a taxi to get home. She did what she had done in training even though she was'nt aware of what she was doing at the time. She just remembers the attacker letting go and hitting the ground and her running away as fast as she could.

it happened in Dublin, presuming it actually happened it is a great example of what you are seeking hardcore evidence to qualify. There are many thousands of examples available, all that's needed is someone with the time on their hands to go and collate all the information available and put it into an evidence chain to keep the nerds among us happy <- JOKE :D

So, this is what I see self defence classes as being.....people taking some of the limited evidence and filling in the gaps themselves. That's fine sometimes, but I think when we're dealing with the potential wellbeing of people, then that's not enough

I agree, I don't teach self defence. But at least some people are taking the issue seriously enough to allow people a forum to come and debate the topic, there by creating awareness of the dangers posed in certain situations. We could just stay in bed I guess.

I feel strongly that the best thing we can tell potential victims is that we honestly don't know much about the profile of sexual attackers, and we don't know a lot of about what deters them. And we definitely don't know what works in terms of empowering women to put strategies into action when it all goes down.

What type of sexual attacker? That is very broad. But assuming you mean a rapist, in order to know what deters them you must understand the motive, the motive for a rapist in many senses is power, power over the individual or dominance if you interrupt this pattern by any combative means necessary then you stand a fairly decent chance of prevailing. You could go along with it but what are the chances of you prevailing now? Again there are countless unfortunate case studies available for disection on this matter.

what else can deter them? - bright lights, numbers in persons, loud screaming individuals, staying away from bus stops at night that are adjacent to lane ways while being alone, women that fight like animals and ugly people.
Seriously again though, you've missed the whole point of awareness and avoidance as you entangle pre conflict behavioral cues with predatory motives.

And we definitely don't know what works in terms of empowering women to put strategies into action when it all goes down.

We could ask some women, maybe if there are any following this thread they could input with what they think, MaeveD etc out there? On the other hand you could drop Melissa Soalt an email. Would that be sufficient evidence?

To answer your question about prisons, my involvement and interest is in prisoner health, as opposed to their psychology, so I'm probaby not much use to you in that regard, though I'd be happy to share anything with you that I do know. The recidivism definition is alien to me, too. I prison health, we use it to talk about re-offending (especially for psych patients) and failure of addiction therapies. I'm not sure that continuing to attack someone after they've mounted a defence, as it's still the same offence. But that isn't really important.

Is that prisoners mental health or like looking after them when they have the flu etc? I will drop you a PM either way you're experiences in the A&E wards is interesting.

What I would really like to see, in conclusion, is for the dept of justice in each country to take on this evidence deficit in trying to give their people advice on avoiding trouble. They have the raw data, but it doesn't seem to get analysed.

I agree but with hardcore evidence that the IMF actually run our country now suggests our Dept of Justice is about to get fleeced let alone invest money in anything that's going to help anyone.

Cheers.

yomchi

I see the ability to cause grief and be a predator is environmental also and they have been at it for along time till they have workout what works best for them, they don't seem to follow any typical trend in my experience, so it would be hard thing to guard against, sorry if i have repeated anything in the clever posts but it went a bit over my head

LOL mine too.

What do you mean by;

I see the ability to cause grief and be a predator is environmental

This is an interesting observation;

they don't seem to follow any typical trend in my experience

What are your experiences of these trends?

Cheers

My experiences are as a ex-prison officer dealing mainly with young offenders, being hand cuffed to naughty people and manning court docks.

I think what ever trade you go in to in life you have to start your training somewhere, if you take a street thug they tend to start in the streets/school and they learn that aggression/violence works very well in getting them what they want within the boundary's they live in(they were never put in the bold corner), picking a target will come from mistakes they have made and they develop individual targets of choice from what has worked, some just rob phones, some oap's, some mothers with children etc.. some might mix and match what ever takes their fancy, teaching a war plan for the randomness of a assault can be difficult, it's better to learn not to be their, getting away from them once they have locked on can be difficult because they do this a lot, it's their job and they have heard it all before. The level of violence comes from what they choose to do and what mood their in, they will tell you they just use enough to get the job done(well that's OK then:eek:), but they are in charge and will do what they want, i asked a prisoner once why he slashed the face of a man he had already robbed and had cowed, he told me he was "bored", as random as that, Gary.

yomchi

gary71 wrote: »

My experiences are as a ex-prison officer dealing mainly with young offenders, being hand cuffed to naughty people and manning court docks.

I think what ever trade you go in to in life you have to start your training somewhere, if you take a street thug they tend to start in the streets/school and they learn that aggression/violence works very well in getting them what they want within the boundary's they live in(they were never put in the bold corner), picking a target will come from mistakes they have made and they develop individual targets of choice from what has worked, some just rob phones, some oap's, some mothers with children etc.. some might mix and match what ever takes there fancy, teaching a war plan for the randomness of a assault can be difficult, it's better to learn not to be their, getting away from them once they have locked on can be difficult because they do this a lot, it's their job and they have heard it all before. The level of violence comes from what they choose to do and what mood their in, they will tell you they just use enough to get the job done(well that's OK then:eek:), but they are in charge and will do what they want, i asked a prisoner once why he slashed the face of a man he had already robbed and had cowed, he told me he was "bored", as random as that, Gary.

That's great real world experience mate and I agree with everything you have said, especially this bit;

teaching a war plan for the randomness of a assault can be difficult, it's better to learn not to be their

Although ambush/random attacks are exactly that, and if you're caught in one you either get beat by it or have the minerals to deal with it. Either way your response needs to be as accessible as possible and have the tenacity 10 times greater than your attacker. God knows which one of 300 techniques you would call on in one of these situations.

Thanks for sharing, real world experiences are great for drawing examples from.

Michael O Leary

Forest Master wrote: »

Yeah, I'd love to see any of these moves work in a real situation:

Hi Forest,

The term "real situation" is subjective and open to debate. This is why the whole self defence vs competition debate has been raging for years without any resolution.

Regards,

Michael

tallaght01

yomchi wrote: »

You could attribute this paragraph to anything and everything under the sun including the need for hardcore evidence to say that the physical techniques taught for self defence actually work, which might be a question you should pose to your Krav Maga teacher. Personally I like to rely on real world examples.
What you need to define is your definition of what 'hardcore evidence' is. Are you really saying that we need thematic analysis that calming a situation down can actually happen?

My take on this would be that A) You can test physical reactions (to an extent) under stress, so there's less of an evidence deficit in, say, KM or MMA or most other purely fighting MAs. I've often been pretty stressed in KM when I've been trying to get out of a choke and I feel I'm about to be choked out. of course I have the option to tap, which I wouldn't have on the street. Then again, I've never been convinced that KM or any other type of self defence is as effective in a street fight as some people would believe. But you most certainly wouldn't apply my logic to "anything and everything under the sun" because most teachers teach something that's testable. Football coaches get sacked if their team always loses, MMA coaches don't get students if they always get beaten, if I teach a course in how to fix cars, I can show that by replacing part A, the engine will start working again.
But in the more "extreme situation" classes, such as first aid for example, there's a reasonable scientific evidence base for most of that they do.

what is hardcore evidence? Well it's not so easy to define because it depends on what data is available and what you want to prove. But there's a big enough SD community worldwide to look at a collection of real world self defence situations and analyse them properly, while (and this is the important bit) trying to identify the confounders and correcting for them. You can say you'd rather rely on "real world" examples than proper analysis. but research is just analysing real world situations as a large group and identifying patterns.

C) I don't think we need an academic analysis of whether a violent situation CAN be calmed down. I think we need an analysis of HOW to do it best.

yomchi wrote: »

You see we could hide behind the need for a hierarchy of evidence or we could bypass pedantic issues and go straight to the countless millions of real life examples of real people in real situations in everyday life. When Kubricks ape started to use that piece of bone as a tool, the other apes realised something very important - "If he can do it, so can I" a concept known as conscious modeling.

Again, I don't tell anyone to use certain techniques we do however discuss options as that's all they are. You can't specifically teach someone the skill of de-escalation but can provide a format of how it might work, what to do and what not to do. Richard Demitri came up with the following format, if you are attempting to calm a potential violent person down well then you should steer away from such language and body language that could;

T - Threaten
A - Argue
C - Challenge
O - Order
S - Shame

Again, all options.

See, again, this is the issue. I don't know who Richard Demitri is. But I know my mate disagrees with him. I've seen my mate in conflict situations twice. In both cases, he told the bloke in no uncertain terms, what would happen to him if he didn't feck off. He would disagree with Mr Demitri. he would say you need to let them know they're gonna get their ass handed to them if they don't back off. SO, who should I believe? I know when i was threatened at work last year i didn't follow the TACOS thing at all, and I got out of it. But I can see the merit in what he's saying. So what we need is some proof that it works, or some proof that it doesn't. Me saying there's no evidence doesn't mean it can't possibly work. The old saying is "the crap evidence isn't evidence that it's crap". It just means we need to look at things more closely. Hell there's even a "defend university" in Ireland! You'd imagine they could work some of this out :P

yomchi wrote: »

Mate it's very frustrating, you haven't read anything I've posted. Seriously. Please refer back to the post you have quoted and see where I deliberately separated the parts you were being confused by. The parts were the body language of a potentially violent person within talking range of you and the modus operandi of sexual predators/killers etc etc.

I think we're just crossing wires about what I wanted to prove and what you offered evidence of. No matter, though, as I htink I've outlined it better in this post.

yomchi wrote: »

I'd be very keen on seeing that research on criminology would you be happy to post it up here or email it to me?

You don't have to look far for examples of how someone managed to stop an attack. Our friend ncef posted this up;

it happened in Dublin, presuming it actually happened it is a great example of what you are seeking hardcore evidence to qualify. There are many thousands of examples available, all that's needed is someone with the time on their hands to go and collate all the information available and put it into an evidence chain to keep the nerds among us happy <- JOKE :D

Well, again, one example doesn't prove anything. Even looking at several different examples may not give us all the answers. We know a LOT of attacks of different types don't get reported to the police. Is there a reporting bias there? Is a successful defence less likely to get reported? (my feeling is that is the case, though it's no more than a feeling). Therefore, if we're only using cases that get reported to the cops, then we're missing out on a raft of cases, where the successful defences actually happen.

Then do we rely on stories from our own students? Well, there's well documented research that shows us people want to please people who are collecting info about something they have a vested interest in. So, while a student may have escaped a mugger using something they were never taught in class, or if their technique fell to **** when they were being attacked, they may not tell you. They might say that the strikes you showed them hurt the attacker so much that they fled, or they may say nothing. Again it's all reporting bias, and one of the reasons i have an inherent distrust of these stories.

yomchi wrote: »

I agree, I don't teach self defence. But at least some people are taking the issue seriously enough to allow people a forum to come and debate the topic, there by creating awareness of the dangers posed in certain situations. We could just stay in bed I guess.

I'm not saying anyone should stay in bed. Attacks are rare, and I don't train with an eye on what can happen on the street. That's pretty low down my list of worries. having said that, it does happen. Happened to a lady who taught SD near where I live, and she got her arm broken. She's a 2nd BB in some MA. Her attackers were 2 girls. As far as I know, she's still teaching SD, as well as MA. I don't know where I'm going with that story. I guess my point is that it's anecdote, and means very little in isolation.
It's fair enough to debate the topics and create an awareness of dangers. But I'm guessing most people would already be aware of the dangers involved in modern life, but just don't spend a huge amount of time worrying about it.

yomchi wrote: »

What type of sexual attacker? That is very broad. But assuming you mean a rapist, in order to know what deters them you must understand the motive, the motive for a rapist in many senses is power, power over the individual or dominance if you interrupt this pattern by any combative means necessary then you stand a fairly decent chance of prevailing. You could go along with it but what are the chances of you prevailing now? Again there are countless unfortunate case studies available for disection on this matter.

what else can deter them? - bright lights, numbers in persons, loud screaming individuals, staying away from bus stops at night that are adjacent to lane ways while being alone, women that fight like animals and ugly people.
Seriously again though, you've missed the whole point of awareness and avoidance as you entangle pre conflict behavioral cues with predatory motives.

I think the first underlined part is a bold statement, and not one I'd readily agree with. However, I've no evidence to back up my assertion. But i believe you can deter somebody without having an understanding of their motive. You're not going to understand the motive in many cases, as offenders' motives are different, although their are patterns. But I would like to see evidence of the importance in understanding motive in getting rid of an attacker.

The second underlined bit about using any "combative" means to fight off someone is not really the issue. My problem has always been the whole awareness/body language/de-escalation stuff. I believ you can teach people to hit hard, so assuming your definition of "combative" involves a few clatters, then that's not what I have an issue with.

As for the third bit, I don't see how I've missed the point. I think we disagree about the importance of the different links in the chain, but I think I've been clear about what I've been asking, and I've understood what you've said. however, I think most of it is opinion (yours or someone else's), which is lower down the evidence chain.

yomchi wrote: »

We could ask some women, maybe if there are any following this thread they could input with what they think, MaeveD etc out there? On the other hand you could drop Melissa Soalt an email. Would that be sufficient evidence?

Well asking other people is just more opinions. the point of this thread is that i would like to see more of those opinions being informed by some solid work in the area.

yomchi wrote: »

Is that prisoners mental health or like looking after them when they have the flu etc? I will drop you a PM either way you're experiences in the A&E wards is interesting.



I agree but with hardcore evidence that the IMF actually run our country now suggests our Dept of Justice is about to get fleeced let alone invest money in anything that's going to help anyone.

Cheers.

Yea I don't think the govt will ever do this type of research. But there are criminology departments at universities, who should have an academic interest in this kind of thing.There are also people making good money from SD, whom I think the onus for addressing the evidence deficit should fall onto.

paxo

tallaght01 wrote: »

My take on this would be that A) You can test physical reactions (to an extent) under stress, so there's less of an evidence deficit in, say, KM or MMA or most other purely fighting MAs. I've often been pretty stressed in KM when I've been trying to get out of a choke and I feel I'm about to be choked out. of course I have the option to tap, which I wouldn't have on the street. Then again, I've never been convinced that KM or any other type of self defence is as effective in a street fight as some people would believe. But you most certainly wouldn't apply my logic to "anything and everything under the sun" because most teachers teach something that's testable. Football coaches get sacked if their team always loses, MMA coaches don't get students if they always get beaten, if I teach a course in how to fix cars, I can show that by replacing part A, the engine will start working again.
But in the more "extreme situation" classes, such as first aid for example, there's a reasonable scientific evidence base for most of that they do.

what is hardcore evidence? Well it's not so easy to define because it depends on what data is available and what you want to prove. But there's a big enough SD community worldwide to look at a collection of real world self defence situations and analyse them properly, while (and this is the important bit) trying to identify the confounders and correcting for them. You can say you'd rather rely on "real world" examples than proper analysis. but research is just analysing real world situations as a large group and identifying patterns.

C) I don't think we need an academic analysis of whether a violent situation CAN be calmed down. I think we need an analysis of HOW to do it best.






See, again, this is the issue. I don't know who Richard Demitri is. But I know my mate disagrees with him. I've seen my mate in conflict situations twice. In both cases, he told the bloke in no uncertain terms, what would happen to him if he didn't feck off. He would disagree with Mr Demitri. he would say you need to let them know they're gonna get their ass handed to them if they don't back off. SO, who should I believe? I know when i was threatened at work last year i didn't follow the TACOS thing at all, and I got out of it. But I can see the merit in what he's saying. So what we need is some proof that it works, or some proof that it doesn't. Me saying there's no evidence doesn't mean it can't possibly work. The old saying is "the crap evidence isn't evidence that it's crap". It just means we need to look at things more closely. Hell there's even a "defend university" in Ireland! You'd imagine they could work some of this out :P



I think we're just crossing wires about what I wanted to prove and what you offered evidence of. No matter, though, as I htink I've outlined it better in this post.




Well, again, one example doesn't prove anything. Even looking at several different examples may not give us all the answers. We know a LOT of attacks of different types don't get reported to the police. Is there a reporting bias there? Is a successful defence less likely to get reported? (my feeling is that is the case, though it's no more than a feeling). Therefore, if we're only using cases that get reported to the cops, then we're missing out on a raft of cases, where the successful attacks actually happen.

Then do we rely on stories from our own students? Well, there's well documented research that shows us people want to please people who are collecting info about something they have a vested interest in. So, while a student may have escaped a mugger using something they were never taught in class, or if their technique fell to **** when they were being attacked, they may not tell you. They might say that the strikes you showed them hurt the attacker so much that they fled, or they may say nothing. Again it's all reporting bias, and one of the reasons i have an inherent distrust of these stories.



I'm not saying anyone should stay in bed. Attacks are rare, and I don't train with an eye on what can happen on the street. That's pretty low down my list of worries. having said that, it does happen. Happened to a lady who taught SD near where I live, and she got her arm broken. She's a 2nd BB in some MA. Her attackers were 2 girls. As far as I know, she's still teaching SD, as well as MA. I don't know where I'm going with that story. I guess my point is that it's anecdote, and means very little in isolation.
It's fair enough to debate the topics and create an awareness of dangers. But I'm guessing most people would already be aware of the dangers involved in modern life, but just don't spend a huge amount of time worrying about it.




I think the first underlined part is a bold statement, and not one I'd readily agree with. However, I've no evidence to back up my assertion. But i believe you can deter somebody without having an understanding of their motive. You're not going to understand the motive in many cases, as offenders' motives are different, although their are patterns. But I would like to see evidence of the importance in understanding motive in getting rid of an attacker.

The second underlined bit about using any "combative" means to fight off someone is not really the issue. My problem has always been the whole awareness/body language/de-escalation stuff. I believ you can teach people to hit hard, so assuming your definition of "combative" involves a few clatters, then that's not what I have an issue with.

As for the third bit, I don't see how I've missed the point. I think we disagree about the importance of the different links in the chain, but I think I've been clear about what I've been asking, and I've understood what you've said. however, I think most of it is opinion (yours or someone else's), which is lower down the evidence chain.




Well asking other people is just more opinions. the point of this thread is that i would like to see more of those opinions being informed by some solid work in the area.




Yea I don't think the govt will ever do this type of research. But there are criminology departments at universities, who should have an academic interest in this kind of thing.There are also people making good money from SD, whom I think the onus for addressing the evidence deficit should fall onto.

"You're not going to understand the motive in many cases, as offenders' motives are different, although their are patterns. But I would like to see evidence of the importance in understanding motive in getting rid of an attacker."

Tallaght01
I agree, I've had two incidents during the past 6 months. I am posting them as an example of how situations can occur and how they may evolve

In the first example I had parked my car beside a new V8 Ford Ute in the car park outside a pizza shop. As I walked towards the pizza shop a man in his late 30's early 40's was sitting outside the shop accompanied by a young teenage boy. He approached me in an aggressive manner and said " you had better not dinged my ute when you opened your door on your piece of crap car. There was several other people waiting outside the shop and were witnesses to this. I assured him that I hadn't touched his car and offered to walk back to the cars with him to check. He replied that I'd be "for it" if I had dinged his car. I again reassured him that I hadn't and went in to order my pizza. A couple of minutes later he came in to pick up his pizza, told me that I was fcuken lucky I hadn't dinged his ute and left

On the second occasion I was waiting for a taxi in the city at about 11.30 pm. I was approached by a young man asking for taxi fare. When I told him that I couldn't help, he called me a tight bastard and said that I better give him something. I told him to feck off and he stepped back and put his fists up. I told him that if he went for me I would batter him and he should fcuk off while he still could. He walked away while telling me what would happen to me when he got his mates together. I get in a taxi and head home.

Now I am a middle aged man who on the first occasion was suited and booted on my way home from work. My gut feeling was that this bloke wanted to big note himself and I didn't want to get into a blue in my suit and in front of witnesses. I was polite to him but maintained my distance from him. On the second occasion I was on my own at a taxi rank and the escalation from asking for taxi fare to demanding it made me think that this bloke was a threat so I escalated to threatening him.

I have no idea what their motive was in either case. My responses were not calculated but were what I felt were appropriate at the time. I didn't weight up the situations and decide on my strategy. I didn't try and work out what their motivation was. i reacted based on a gut feeling of the level of threat they presented. Were they the right response ? In that I didn't have to fight and wasn't attacked, then yes. Could i have responded in a different way? sure with the benefit of hindsight I can think of many other ways of dealing with these situation.

As I said earlier I am posting these as an example of my experience of awareness ( very little as I didn't anticipate either incident) Deescalation ( maybe in the first case) and aggressors motive ( no idea and frankly didn't care) patterns ( high level verbal aggression in case 1 and a request, threat and psychical posturing.

Niall Keane

Figuring out an attacker's motives? Na! I don't want to counsel him, don't want to know or really care if he has mother issues! I have found on numerous occasions, as have my training partners and students that good striking and wrestling deescalates the situation almost immediately!

There is a marked difference between the power of a competent martial artist and those who are not, and I have never failed to see that "oh, **** I've just confused a tiger for a tabby" look cross an attackers face when "Jin" martially efficient power is delivered. The trick is to shatter their intent, and how easy that is when you take their religion - their belief that they have you - and turn it on its head! Suddenly their god no longer exists for them, and they feel very, very alone!

Last time I was threatened, and the fool attempted to mug me I guess, he came out of nowhere and tried pick my pocket first, guess tai chi chuan -tui shou skills made me aware and respond by trapping his arms and using a "fa jing" (short range but powerful) push to send him back a few meters, I was trying not to spill my drink, so had to do this with one hand. He then got a bit upset shouting "I have a knife", (guess this was his equaliser, having been soundly defeated by a single arm) I replied well I have a foot and kicked him (in the torso through his arm that was reaching into his pocket) from one side of Fleet Street to the other... After picking himself up off his hole, he turned and fled.

Ting...Hua...Fa
Listen, transform and discharge.

It was like playing with a puppet on a string, initially trapping and tying him up by using his reactions against him, a good martial arts teacher should be able to pass such skills on, that's what makes them qualified to teach self defence!

Of course the secret to martial arts, well true martial arts, is practice, so there's no secret move, or mind frame that will allow the lazy to pull this stuff off, that's probably not what those seeking a weekend course to become Jason Bourne want to hear?

And as for requiring a strong physique, I guess some will hide behind the "we can’t all be international fighter" excuse, as the story above highlights, it is not required, initially I broke his attack and created a few meters range with a single arm trap and push, and while holding a pint in my other hand, the guy was I suppose about 80kg, I cannot lift 80kg with my outstretched arm, I could not have used brute force! The follow-up well placed kick combining a jamb with a knock down was immediate almost unconscious, born from years of training awareness and practicing endlessly. It would be wrong to say anyone could do this, but anyone who would train hard and mindfully could!

on an aside, for those interested on this subject I would recomend in particular the "Ba Gua Zhang Classics" which are more direct than say the "Tai Chi Chuan" or "Xing Yi Qaun" classics when it comes to self defence, well the streets of 18th and 19th century Beijing educated Ba Gua Zhang.