jmaccauley

From an article I wrote for Personal Protection Concepts a few years ago-Jerry

By Jerry MacCauley
personalprotectionconcepts.info

Do you remember learning about the so-called “fight or flight” reflex? It is traditionally thought that humans have the same survival instincts as other animals. That is, when confronted by danger, they will either defend themselves by attacking the threat (counter attack) or by fleeing to safety. This is an instinctive response to danger, meaning that it does not have to be taught. Nature provides the ability to do what it takes to survive.



Hunters have learned that animals use other responses to danger. Freezing in place is recognized as a defense mechanism, as is burying the head in the sand (closing the eyes) and denial. Sometimes the endangered creature just doesn’t realize that it is in a threatening situation. Predators stalk and exploit those weaker than themselves, the classic example of survival of the fittest.

Violence among humans is really no different than in the animal world. There is fight, flight and freeze instincts, but predators of humans have to contend with an additional aspect: intelligence. Those who study predatory behavior use that intelligence to develop the ability to predict danger and take steps to protect themselves. This is traditionally referred to as self-defense. Unfortunately, there is often an element of fair play on the part of the prey that is never exhibited by the predator. This is sort of like playing by rules that have not been mutually agreed upon by both participants. The result is deadly for the prey (victim, good guy).


Sometimes being unaware of danger makes us feel secure. The head in the sand technique is rarely effective at preventing violence, but is extremely effective in preventing schools and workplaces from providing protection for us. Ever notice the lighted exit signs and clearly marked fire alarm boxes in a public building? Someone had the foresight to install those items in case of an emergency. Do you ever recall seeing directions for what to do in the case of a violent incident? Of course not, because that would bring attention to the fact that violence might happen. I remember the old Crime Prevention paradox: If we prevent crime, and there subsequently are no reported incidents, then we no longer need the crime prevention. Consider the shopping mall that increases parking lot patrols to reduce the incidence of auto burglaries. As soon as the burglary rate goes down, the patrols are scaled back.


Years ago I gave a seminar on self-defense to a group of civilians who were hoping I could show them some mystical technique for protecting themselves from danger. I spent a little time on the “awareness” aspect, and a little less time on the “avoidance of danger” portion. They really wanted to learn techniques that would offer them protection; real down and dirty, hand-to-hand combat training. That’s when I learned an interesting dynamic that occurs when you tell someone to hit, punch or kick as hard as they can. Imagine the target as a face, a groin or a throat that you must destroy if you are to survive. Some (mostly men) would strike a pad powerfully, while others could only bring themselves to slap at the target. I would encourage them to imagine that the attacker would kill them if they didn’t do something decisive. I found, as other trainers can attest, that some people are reluctant to intentionally injure another human being, even if they are in danger of being killed.

Some students have strong religious or moral convictions at work here. Perhaps the fear of breaking the law by defending themselves is what causes the reluctance to fight back. Some other unknown fears might be influencing their inaction. One thing was clear: facing an inanimate pad was not sufficient motivation to fight back with force. Imagining the pad as a dangerous predator was too far fetched for many of the students. What would motivate otherwise peaceful people to forcefully defend themselves? The answer was fear. The same fear that causes hesitation and reluctance to strike can be manipulated to trigger a violent response to danger.




.

Marian

I will agree with this, people have been thaught some kind of values system don't realise how deep inside it goes, I myself I was trained by teacher who used to say: "this is martial art this is not a combat sport sport like judo or wrestling, you are not supposed to score points, you are supposed to kill, injure or disable opponent, so when you turn arround and walk away he can't attack your back". But I was training with my firends whom I didn't want to injure, and I was going to competitions in this and other sports where certain rules are applied, and when you get used to those rules it is hard to suddenly change it in the situation of actual danger.
Luckily for me when real s*it happened for the first time the natural instincts took over. and luckily again they were fight instincts not for example freeze instincts. With the time, exposure to the repeating violence made it all now became kind of rutine, when instinctive reaction is not so important anymore, because I can control adrenaline release, judge situation clearly, and rely on more on skills than berserker mode
I'm affraid you can train as much as you want, but as long as you realize it is a drill your state of mind doesn't really change, the first situation of facing the real danger is what "make the real you come out".
And this first situation is seriously dangerous for you in any outcome, scenario 1: you freeze and instantly your life is in danger, scenario 2: "you lost it" "dead bodies everywhere" and it's still you who will have to face the consequences.
That's why it is so good to be part of the team, team which can give you support or which can break through "red mist" and make you stop...

jmaccauley

Thanks for the comment. I'm sure that many people in this profession have also evolved (hopefully) prior to facing iminent danger.

My only other (not really,I have many more) thought on this concerns the whole "martial arts" paradigm. Whether we call it sport or reality based, the term "art" kinda pulls us into a different realm. Not really sure how to eliminate that, but I try to teach my students that words are powerful tools.

Marian

Yeah I agree about words however I thought we are talking about violent situation where the only exits left are fight or flight or last and worst freeze

jmaccauley

I was referring to the term "Martial Arts" with that comment. When you condition yourself to think of your training as an "art" you take on a whole new dynamic. Another example would be someone who is proficient in the sport of Judo. He is known as a Judo Player. I'm sure that he or she has the balance and coordination to help them in a violent confrontation, but not necessarily the mental conditioning to do what is necessary.

I'm open to different ideas and concepts, but when I think of "art," I think of being entertained. Music, paintings, ballet, literature...all art forms. Self defense get's me to a different level.

Marian

I agree with the term Arts, probably it originated same way like phrase Art of War, if you achieve such a level of mastery in some subject that you actually make it and Art, which is suitable in my opinion for Traditional Karate, or Wu-Shu but not so much suitable for Krav Maga, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and other system focusing entirely on combat efficiency.
Still, an interesting thing regarding Judo and other "combat sports" you can train them generally fully on being sure that in sparring and in competition, or on the street the take down, hold, lock it's always the same lock, now training some potentially damaging techniques from BBJ, Karv Maga, etc, you have to often make it not in full speed or power as they could be deadly, which later can effect you doing the same techinque in dangerous situation not full on as this is the way you trained it. So teoriticaly a "player" can be more prepared for dangerous situation than "fighter", this problem is often mentioned by many practitioners, that's why I think the idea of body armour like the one used in S.P.E.A.R. system by Tony Blauer seems quite interesting.

jmaccauley

So, are you agreeing with me or not? Sorry if I sound confused but I just want to make sure my point was taken. Or challenged.

Martial arts or "styles" have a way of rising and falling in popularity. I have a martial arts background myself and thoroughly enjoyed the training. In fact, If I hadn't had that endoctrination I would never have had the confidence to train anyone. From military combatives to police tactics to S.P.E.A.R., I have sampled many and even stolen (if thats OK) many tactics for my own program.

What I, and many others have learned is to never refer to our training as THE way, but A way. Seriously, the body only moves in so many directions, but the mind has unlimited potential.

Thanks for your comments.

Marian

I agree, I was just mentioning another interesting thing.

johnp

Interesting points.

I agree that the term "martial art" is not a good term to use unless you are doing an art for the art itself and not for combat.
In the V.I.P.A System we use different terms depending on who we are training. This is due to the fact that each of the different groups have different needs in their combat environment.

Executive Protection Officers have Close Protection combat systems

Military personnel have close quarter combat

Police have police defence tactics

Civilians have self protection

There is nothing new in this system, as you already said the body only moves in a certain number of ways. Where is does differ from other systems is the application of techniques in each groups environment.

With the application of stress evaluation clinics training can be as realistic as is possible ,and as students are time and time again taken out of their comfort zones they can become desensitized to violence.

If you have ever taken part in an "animal day" training session you will know what i mean.

As you have said it can be hard to instil the animal instinct in some people. It is correct that ethical, moral and religious beliefs can undermine some peoples chances of survival in a conflict and this is hard to overcome without getting into philosophical and religious debate. Though these people genearlly do not come to me for training.

It is good to get the views of other people on this subject as you can never stop learning, even beginners in close protection and close quarter combat can sometimes astound you with something new and innovative.

jmaccauley

I agree your approach to training. Once the student has his skill level "pressure tested," they do become more confident.

I also strongly emphasize the concept of "owning" your techniques, as opposed to learning mine. I would rather you learn what you can do, rather than try to replicate what I can do.

I'll discuss this more in an upcoming article or blog entry. I hope you guys will jump in with your ideas.