All Self-Protection Methodologies are essentially Problem Solving Systems whose solution is to deprive an aggressor of his or her Intent and/or Means and/or Opportunity to do harm. The Point of View of the Problem Solver influences which System he or she will choose.
All of these Systems are made up of a distinct set of variables
that can be divided into Considerations, Factors, Assumptions, Problems, Outcomes, and
Solutions. The Solutions are a subset of
the Outcomes. The Outcomes are a subset
of the Considerations. The Factors, Assumptions, and Problems
are also a subset of the Considerations. Therefore, the Considerations are the variables.
There are Closed Systems, Open Systems, Simple Systems,
Compound Systems, and Complex Systems. All these Systems have their own unique set
of Considerations.
A Closed System
has a fixed set of Considerations, and thus is not subject to change.
An Open System has
a varying set of Considerations, and thus is constantly evolving and changing.A Simple System is has few Considerations, and therefore applies to limited situations.
A Compound System
is made up of two or more Simple Systems.
A Complex System
has many Considerations, and thus may be applied in multiple and varied
situations. An Evolving System is a Open Complex System.
A Simplistic System
is a Closed Simple System. The
majority of popular self-protection systems are Simplistic Systems. These Simplistic Systems depend on “solving” selected
Problems and allow for limited Outcomes.
Simplistic Systems
are easiest to market and sell because they effectively follow the KISS
Principle of Keep it Simple Stupid. They offer a simple solution to a simple
problem, and thus they have great emotional appeal.The Considerations are ALL of the possibilities allowed for by the System relating to all parties and environment involved. For example, assume a System that uses a punch to the head as a response to an aggressor’s aggression and/or attack. The intended Solution is the incapacitation the Aggressor which takes away his means to do harm. Do the Outcomes include one, a few, some, most, or all of the following?
A stunned/stopped Aggressor.
A broken hand by the Defender Puncher.
A punch that has minimal effect on the Aggressor.
A punch that has minimal effect on the Aggressor.
A knocked out Aggressor who then falls, hits his
head, and dies.
A bystander who only sees the Defender’s punch, and tells the
police that the Defender is the Aggressor.
A Puncher who cuts his hand on the mouth of the
Aggressor and gets a serious infection.
A Defender whose hand is already injured so he
can’t punch effectively.
A pre-emptive punch that terminates the
confrontation.
A pre-emptive punch that escalates the
confrontation.
A punch that gets blocked.
A punch that misses completely.
The Aggressor’s friends get involved after the
punch.
Small or frail Puncher and large Aggressor.
For example, if someone says “Well, if he did that to me, I
would just punch him in the face.” The Speaker’s problem solving action to the
Problem of “That” is to punch “Him” in the face which is designed to create the
Solution of depriving “Him” of the means and/or intent to cause harm.
The Speaker has a Simplistic System for self-protection.
Most likely he will be able to site numerous examples of where his System has
been used successfully. If he wants to establish himself as a “badass”, this
System will be emotionally appealing. Most likely he will also reject any evidence
or information that suggests his Solution is not the only Outcome. The other Outcomes previously suggested will
be dismissed as “unlikely”. Thus, his methodology is a Closed System.
When teaching or explaining his System to others, he will
only select Problems that are “solved” by a punch. The Outcomes are restricted
to those that are compatible with his System.
Promoters of his System will have the same emotional attachment to both
the image created by the System and the resulting Solution.
Clearly when promoters of Simplistic Systems meet, they will
declare the superiority of their system and the inferiority of the other
system. The result will be a dogmatic battle with both sides citing hand-picked
examples as “proof” of their system’s problem solving ability.