To Fear or Not to Fear

After Earth: Fear is a Choice

Fear is a common emotion. Fear of violence is also a common emotion in most people. Fear can be beneficial when it keeps you safe in certain situations. This is Situational Fear. But when fear is ongoing or not based on an actual and current threat is becomes Dispositional Fear. Dispositional Fear creates stress and anxiety. Dispositional Fear makes you less safe because you have trouble identifying actual threats from imaginary ones. It lowers your ability to reason and make effective decisions.  To summarize, some Situational Fear is good for you, most Dispositional Fear is bad for you.

“To him who is in fear everything rustles.” - Sophocles

Where does Fear come from? Fear is the result of a person’s threat assessment of some unwanted event or occurrence. This threat assessment can be both conscious and/or unconscious and most likely is a combination of both. The threat assessment is the result of the person’s perception of five factors:

CHANCE is the odds or likelihood that the unwanted event could occur. Theoretically, chance is determined by mathematical odds determined from statistics. But in the real word, statistic don’t tell the whole story. They have been cherry picked and manipulated. What Chance really comes down to is your gut feeling as to the likelihood that something may or may not happen.

CONTROL is your ability to affect whether or not something happens. If you have influence on the event occurring you have some control. If you have no influence, then you have no control.

CAPABILITY is your ability to handle the event if it does occur. The greater your ability to deal with the event, the greater your evaluation of your Capability.

CONSEQUENCE is the result of what you think is going to happen. For example, you believe the Consequences of being robbed is the loss of your wallet. Or you believe that not only will you lose your wallet, you will also be beaten, raped, and possibly killed.

COPING is how you handle the unwanted event. Are you able to deal with the aftermath easily, or do you suffer a high degree of post event stress, self-blame, and debilitation.

All of these 5C’s are perception and belief based. You really don’t have concrete data to make a true evaluation based on mathematical calculations. Your evaluations many be based on experience and evaluation of the facts. They could be based on perceptions and beliefs acquired through the news media, Hollywood images, cultural stereotypes, myths and misinformation promoted by self-serving industries and ideological organizations.

“There is no passion so contagious as that of fear.” - Michel de Montaigne

Your threat assessment depends upon the combination of these perceptions. For example, a high threat assessment is the result of Chance=high, Control=low, Capability=low, Consequence=high, Coping=low. Here is an example. Many parents fear their child will be abducted while walking home from school. They perceive the Chance is higher than it statistically is. They have no Control to prevent it. They have no Capability to stop it. The Consequence is never seeing their child again. They don’t think they could Cope with the loss. All of these beliefs combine to create a high threat assessment and associated fear.

A low threat assessment is the opposite - Chance=low, Control=high, Capability=high, Consequence=low, Coping=high. All things being equal, people with an Internal Locus of Control (they make things happen) are more likely to have lower threat assessments than those with an External Locus of Control (things happen to them).

“I have learned over the years that when one's mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.” - Rosa Parks


Fear also arises from CREATIVITY. It takes a creative mind to envision the many ways in which harm could occur. Someone with an active imagination has the ability to "see" a whole host of potentially threatening scenarios that simply wouldn't occur to a less creative person. More perceived threats leads to more fear.

Karen Thompson Walker: What Fear Can Teach Us - TED Talk

People with Dispositional Fear combine creativity with a generally higher baseline threat assessment for unwanted events. They perceive more risk in the world around them than others. Dispositional Fear can result from multiple incidents of Situational Fear or occurrences of unwanted events.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Situational Fear is temporary and depends on the circumstances. Fear of falling disappears when the person is on the ground. Fear of a particular person should dissipate when that person is not around. Otherwise, it morphs into Dispositional Fear. Fear from being in a dangerous situation should disappear when the danger goes away.

The first step to dealing with your fear is understanding what underlying factors and beliefs have influenced your threat assessment. An accurate threat assessment is a critical component for insuring safety. Should you really be afraid and thus your fear is keeping you safe? Or is your fear unfounded and based on the sum of your worst case perceptions of the 5Cs? Does your fear keep you anxious and paralyze you into inaction. Is your fear based on critical thinking and judgment? Or does it arise from unconscious and ingrained beliefs absorbed from self-serving agendas, negative stereotypes and fearful images created by popular culture?

“We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them.’ - Christian Nestell Bovee

On Offense and Defense

“The best offensive is to eliminate your opponent’s defense.”

 

 

Offense is the concept of actively forcing an action or event on the Target.

Defense is the concept of actively resisting this action or event by the Target.

The concepts of Offense and Defense have no attached or intrinsic value judgments of good and bad.

When the Offensive is greater than the Defense it succeeds. When it is equal or less than the Defense it fails. Increasing Offensive effectiveness makes it more likely that the intended action will succeed. Increasing Defensive effectiveness through makes it more likely that the intended Offensive action will fail.

Understanding Defense makes it easier to successfully apply effective Offense. Understanding the Offense makes it easier to apply effective Defense.
 

“The best defense is a good offense.” - Maxim

Translation - An effective Offense is an important aspect of an effective Defense. Also known as the concept of “Attack the attacker”

“The best offensive is to eliminate your opponent’s defense.”- Erik K.
 

Translation – No matter how weak or ineffective your offense is, if your opponent has no defense you will prevail.

Many times it is easier to eliminate or remove your opponent’s defense than to increase your own offense. It takes effort to increase your offense capability and effectiveness. Once you have reached a certain level of offensive capability, further increases are marginally more difficult.

If you are a dedicated martial artist, you may be willing to put in the time and effort for self-improvement. But what if you are a street thug, common criminal, or human predator? The easiest method to insure your success is to assault people with no or little defensive capability. Why is this easy? Because you get to choose who you assault, when you want to assault them, where you assault them, and with what tools.

In a civilized society, a person’s defensive capabilities are the sum of their internal ability (what they can do) and their external ability (what others can do for them). For example, while most people can steal candy from a baby, the baby’s defense extends to its care givers and other who may choose to intervene on its behalf. Taking the candy is only half the battle. Success also requires getting away without consequences. I call this defensive external ability, the Institutional Fence.

It is common for many cynical people to claim that the Institutional Fence will not protect them. That the police are slow to arrive. That help may never come. While this fact may be true in some situations, it is not true in most situations. In a civilized society, help does arrive sooner or later. It may arrive too late. But the threat of arrival still exists.

What the cynics are forgetting is that the mere threat of the Institutional Fence has an effect on an aggressor, whether or not help actually arrives in time. The “bad guy” is at-risk. Therefore, predatory people systematically reduce risk by accurate victim selection.

The low hanging fruit of the Victim Tree are those that both have minimal defenses and are either unable or unwilling to seek help before, during, or after the crime (have certain Factors).
 

1.      Silent Victims – Afraid to resist and unwilling to seek help. In this case, the Predator uses familiarity with the victim to determine who to assault. This person is the lowest risk victim (lowest hanging fruit) for the Predator.

2.      Passive Victims – Afraid to resist and willing to seek help after the assault. In this case, the Predator needs to conceal his identity to not get caught. This person is a low risk victim (low hanging fruit) for the Predator.

3.      Vulnerable Victims – Unable to successfully resist and willing to seek help after the assault. This person is more risky since he or she makes an attempt to resist. This resistance increases the odds that the Predator may be identified or that help may arrive from the Institutional Fence.

4.      Hard Target - Able to resist and willing to seek help. This person represents the greatest risk to the Predator. The Predator needs to employ strategies to overwhelm his victim as quickly as possible for success. He needs to shield his identity to ward off consequences from the Institutional Fence.

It is clear that the Predator, who has the luxury of selecting his victim, has the ability to choose the potential victim that is perceived to offer the greatest odds of success. His odds are increased by selecting a Silent or Passive Victim with no/low defense as opposed to a Hard Target with a stronger defense.

If the Predator increases his offense by employing a weapon, he also increases the severity of his punishment if convicted. Therefore, the safest strategy involves selecting a low risk victim who is afraid to resist and unwilling to engage the protection of the Institutional Fence.  For the Predator, It is safer to lower the victim’s defense (by selection) than to increase his offense.

This rational explains why the majority of victims of sexual assault both know their attacker and also do not report the crime. The victims were not chosen at random. They were accurately selected as low hanging fruit offering minimal risk to the attacker. This logic also explains why most of these assaults involve threats as opposed to force. The use of force is not needed and using it increases the risk posed by the Institutional Fence.

Those that want to minimize the risk of selection for easy victimization need to convey their willingness to actively resist and willingness to actively seek the help of the Institutional Fence. They are now perceived as Hard Targets, the least desirable victims of Predators.

 



The Wrong Question

You can’t get the right answer from the wrong question. I heard that statement from Rory Miller.

In terms of a self-defense discussion, the wrong question usually beings as “I want to learn some moves”, or “please show us some moves”.

This question inevitably leads to the Self-Defense Instructor demonstrating a technique to be execute into a particular situation. The problem is that the Instructor is demonstrating the “move” that he or she would use, not a move that most other people could emulate without physical, emotional, and spiritual training, the judgment of when the “move” is appropriate for the situation, and the successive actions necessary in the likely event that the first “move” fails.

The Instructor, by the very nature of his or her training and choice of self-defense profession is not comparable physically, mentally, and emotionally to the majority of the people seeking “moves’. Thus, the question needs to sound more like “Given my current lack of physical training and ability, my inhibitions from social conditioning, my emotionally fearful state, and my lack of clarity as to what would be actually happening, and my unwillingness to devote much time, energy, and resources to self-defense study, what is something I could reliable do in this [described] scenario?”

No longer is the quality of the answer dependent upon the Instructor’s own ability to execute. It is about the Student actually being able to perform the suggested “move” in a real life situation. The Instructor is now judged on how well the Student could perform the suggested 'move" regardless of the Instructor’s personal ability. The determining factor is the Student’s likelihood of success, not Instructor’s likelihood of success.

The problem with this more involved question is that the Student does not want to be informed of his or her limitations. He or she is unhappy to settle for a “move” that is so basic in nature that it can not even be described as a “move”.

For most beginning students with the limitations of mind, body, and spirit as noted above, the best “move” if physically attacked in an asocial predatory situation is to make as much noise as possible and move away from the attacker as best they can.” The “move” is to loudly move. Given that the classic “victim” is silent and frozen in fear, loudly moving is not a classic “victim response”.

This “move” is not what the Student is looking for because the Student is asking the wrong question. A more appropriate question would be to ask “Given my current mental, physical, and emotional abilities and limitations, what can I actively do to deter being assaulted in the first place?” This question does not get asked because most people think that self-defense begins with the physical assault, not well before it.

There is no sexiness and glory in deterrence. But understanding deterrence is a prerequisite to understanding what to do when deterrence is not enough.

 

On Both Sides of the Violence Factor Spectrum Lie the Casualties of Violence

 

“Don’t be a victim” is classic self-defense advice. It is usually directed towards women. It tells women to walk with confidence when out and about, to be aware of their surroundings, etc. What is piece of advice fails to address is that the most likely Casualties of Violence fall into two vastly different groups.

The first Group consists of people with multiple of the following Factors:

-          Overly submissive

-          Overly risk-adverse

-          Overly fearful of negative consequences from their actions.

-          Under confident

-          Under assertive

-          Under protective

-          Unlikely to speak up for themselves.

-          Easily threatened and intimidated.

-          Overly trusting of other people.

-          Under reactive.

-          Too slow to take action.

Members of this Group are statistically the most likely to be assaulted or abused, usually by someone who they know. Demographically, this Group has a high percentage of people with disabilities, homeless, runaways, young girls and boys, teenage girls as well as other lower status social classes.

The next Group consists of people with multiple of the following Factors:
 

-          Over aggressive

-          Overly reckless

-          Minimal fear of negative consequences from their actions.

-          Over confident

-          Over domineering

-          Overly protective

-          Very quick to speak up and voice their opinion.

-          Use threats and intimidation.

-          Overly suspicious of other people.

-          Over reactive and impulsive.

-          Too quick to take action.

Members of this Group are statistically most likely to either die or be seriously injured by violence.

To put it another way, the First Group has too much Yin, the Second has too much Yang. What keeps most people out of the Casualties of Violence Class is a balance between the opposing Factors.

Yes. I am saying that most people actually get it right when it comes to avoiding being a casualty of violence.

Here is an example. Every year about 1.6 billion people ride the NYC subway system. Using rough math, and assuming that each rider encounters 100 people in close proximity on each ride, there are 106,000,000,000 human interactions. Out that number, there are around 3,000 felonies per year. That makes one serious crime per 35,333,330 interactions. This number confirms that most people know how to avoid either engaging or being victimized by violence in common everyday situations.

The risk of becoming a Casualty of Violence goes up dramatically for those with the Factors previously described and when the situation falls out of the ordinary.

The Five Stages of Personal Security

The Five Stages of Personal Security is a model that charts the evolution of a person in terms of self-defense effectiveness combined with peace of mind. Regardless of whether or not a person is actively involved in some type of self-defense training or education, he or she exists on some point within the Five Stages. 

It is important to keep in mind, that the path to maximum personal security is not simply a function of time and effort. A person can progress to a particular stage and not go any further. It is also possible to regress backwards along the path with time. All the stages are also governed by the Goldilocks Law of the Inverted U-Curve. That means that there is a Just-Right amount of time and magnitude of effort for each stage that is most beneficial for growth. Too Little of each stage can be as detrimental as Too Much. At the Downside of the Inverted-U, the slope points downward. That means that further progression along the curve creates a less beneficial result.

 DENIAL STAGE

 Those that are in the first stage are in DENIAL of the fact that they are prey. Every living being on this planet is prey to some other living being. Some beings may be more predator than prey, but all are prey in some form. Those that don’t consider themselves to be prey are in denial of the existence of real risk and danger in the world from other beings.

A little denial is good. As human beings we can’t function in society if we constantly think about all the bad events that could transpire to ourselves and our loved ones. In order to drive a car safely and effectively, we cannot dwell on the prospect of dying in a fiery wreck at each moment. In reality, that horrible accident could happen to any of us, but it is unlikely on a statistical level. On the other hand, too much denial leads to taking unnecessary risks and ignoring basic safety precautions. These types of actions increase the likelihood of an accident. Thus lowering a person’s safe driving effectiveness.

Many people exist on the Downside of the Denial Inverted-U. They live their lives with the belief that nothing bad will happen to them. They create peace of mind by denial of risk and danger. They deny the fact that they are prey.

Too little denial makes it hard to function due to all your “concerns”. Too much denial makes you easy prey. You need a Just-Right amount of denial to be function smoothly a society that contains inherent risks.

FEAR STAGE

The evolution of Denial is Fear. Once a person comes to realization that he or she is in fact, prey. It is natural to become afraid. In fact, in many ways, Denial is both a conscious and unconscious effort to avoid the stage of Fear. The Fear stage may last for many years. It many last so long that it is thought of as the accepted state of living. People in the Fear stage actively take safety precautions and use risk reduction strategies. These actions increase their self-defense effectiveness well beyond those in Denial.

But, many in the Fear stage progress to the Downside of the Fear Inverted-U, where their fearfulness inhibits their confidence and ability to handle situations. They are unassertive. They use submissiveness as the primary strategy for resolving conflict and confrontations. Their fear also greatly reduces their peace of mind. They have too much fear.

Many people stuck in the Fear stage are paralyzed into passivity and inaction. They accept fear as a way of life. They don’t feel they have the power to change their situation. They limit themselves to worry and passive methods of risk reduction. Others in the Fear stage buy self-defense products and carry weapons they have no intention of using in an actual self-defense situation. But the presence of these weapons helps provide them with a feeling of “security”. They view personal safety a primary concern, yet they cannot bring themselves to actively address their fears with concrete actions.

Too little fear makes you complacent to risk. Too much fear and you become either paranoid or overwhelmed. A Just-Right amount of fear encourages you keep safe.

ANGER STAGE

The realization that one is prey combined with the stress of fear progresses forward to anger. The anger is necessary to provide the motivation to move beyond the Fear stage. A person dominated by fear is unlikely to have the mindset necessary to take definitive action.

The Anger stage can manifest itself in many forms. A common form of Anger is protests and demands for “someone or some entity to do something about the problem”. People in the Anger stage actively support and want to see change. Crime needs to be reduced. Criminals need to be caught and punished. Men need to stop assaulting women. People have a “right” to be and feel safe in all situations. These are common ideals put forth by people in the Anger stage.

Many in the Anger stage actively seek out means of creating personal protection. These means may involve seeking martial arts instruction, or obtaining a weapon such as a firearm, knife, pepper spray, etc. Those in the Anger stage are tired of the fear. They want to fight back against the “Bad Guys”. They want to protect themselves and their loved ones from the criminals of the world. Anger drives them to take action.

Those that progress to the Downside of the Anger Inverted-U actively talk and write about how they will respond instantly with physical defense to any the perceived threat. Many see all threats as life and death situations. The rallying call of the Anger stage is “I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by six.” Many deep into in the Anger stage have no interest in learning about self-defense law. They see themselves as the Good Guys fighting back against the Bad Guy. Therefore, the law doesn’t apply to their situation.

Anger is necessary to employ many basic methods of physical defense and execute the concept of “attacking the attacker”. Those with too little anger are usually not able to perform the actions required such as standing up to, injuring or stopping an attacker by any available means. They have too much fear and too little anger. But too much anger leads to over-kill. It leads to training in methods of domination and punishment as opposed to deterrence, de-escalation, escape and evasion.

It is common for many self-defense practitioners to progress to the Anger stage and never evolve beyond it. The Anger stage can be deceptively empowering. Many in the Anger stage look at those in the Denial and Fear stage as weak and naïve. They see themselves as the knowledgeable and strong ones. They feel that with enough training and/or with the right weapons they will be able to stop the Bad Guy every time. They are unconcerned with thoughts of possible remorse, moral, and legal consequences from the use of extreme force.

Too little anger and you usually don’t have the mindset to take action. Too much anger and you over-react and/or over-enforce situations creating backlashes. You become a danger to yourself. A Just-Right amount of anger provides you with the motivation you need to keep safe.

SYNERGY STAGE

Those that have evolved through the previous stages arrive at the Synergy stage. It is here they start to understand that Denial, Fear, and Anger are intertwined and interdependent. A person doesn’t leave any stage completely behind. He or she brings some of that stage with him as he moves forward. A person in the Synergy stage has a Just-Right amount of Denial, Fear, and Anger as a foundation.

In the beginning of the Synergy stage, people start to understand how all the concepts learned and skills acquired in the previous stages work together. They realize that the Five Stages of Personal Security is simply a model that helps them to create a framework for categorizing their emotions and charting their development. As the Synergy stage progresses, they learn to apply judgment to situations as opposed to reacting in a scripted pre-determined manner. They expand their knowledge and skills to new areas in order to deal with a wide variety of threats and scenarios. They understand the underlying principles and concepts that unify their various skills.

The Synergy stage has the potential to last a long time. It is a time of maximum learning and accomplishment. It is more measured and paced then the previous stages. Much of the Synergy stage consists of applying what has been learned previously to an ongoing lifestyle. Risk reduction measures become as ordinary and unemotional as buckling a seat belt.

Those that move too far to the Downside of the Synergy Inverted-U are never satisfied with what they understand and what they capable of performing. These people run the risk of becoming one-dimensional in their pursuit of more self-defense knowledge and ability. They miss out on the living the life they are trying to protect.

Too little time and effort in the Synergy stage doesn’t provide enough development. Too much and the person sacrifices his or her other interests and pursuits. A Just-Right amount provides the greatest evolution and a balanced life.

ACCEPT STAGE

The Accept stage marks the end of the constant evolution of Synergy. It is at this stage that the person is at peace with his or her knowledge and ability. She has truly acquired peace of mind. She is accepted the reality of risk and feels prepared to deal with it. But he also realizes that not all circumstances can be controlled. That there are always situations and events that no amount of preparation, skill, or knowledge can change the outcome.

In this stage, the person has accepted that risk reduction and safety precautions are a part of life. They are the tradeoff cost of greater security. She has come to embrace her previous stages as part of her development. He no longer needs to use denial to ease function, fear to encourage safety, or anger to create motivation. She no longer needs the stead growth of Synergy. She feels secure.

But the Accept too is stage is governed by the Goldilocks Law of the Inverted U-Curve. Too much acceptance leads back to the complacency of Denial.

The Five Stages of Personal Security is a model that helps people reference their development in terms of ability to effectively manage conflict and also have peace of mind. It is not a science. No person actually exists as a point on the curve. The curve can be general or specific to certain situations. For example, someone could be in the Anger stage in terms of street harassment, while also be in the Denial stage for home invasion.

The model is a one of the many guides which help people evolve towards great personal security.

 

The Goldilock's Law of the Inverted U-Curve

It's not rocket science by any stretch. It is a simple concept. In many situations, after a certain point increasing the magnitude or intensity of a particular factor results in a negative decrease in the overall effect. But before the point, the increase corresponds to a positive increase in overall effect.

For example:
Increasing the confidence of someone with low self-confidence creates a positive effect.
Increasing the confidence to someone with lots of existing self-confidence creates the negative effect of over confidence.

Take in Too Little calories and you are skinny. Take in Too Much and you get fat. There is a Just-Right amount of caloric intake that helps you maintain your ideal weight.

There are so many examples of the Goldilocks Law that it is helpful to think of an example of what doesn't fall under the Law.

Judgment and decision making skill and ability, you really can't get too much of that.

Food for thought:
How many arguments and disagreements are the result of people viewing the situation from different sides of the Inverted U-Curve. In other words, people with seemingly opposing viewpoints may actually agree on the fundamental concept. But they may disagree on whether a certain (known, perceived, imagined) quantity of that concept is actually positive or negative.

The Topography of Violence: You Need a Detailed Map to Navigate the Terrian

 

 



The popularly held view of violence is that it occurs between a Good Guy vs. a Bad Guy. This simplistic view of violence is appealing to many people including my nine year old daughter. When watching a television conflict she always wants to know who the Bad Guy is.  It is easiest and most satisfying for her to reduce all conflict to a battle of Good vs. Evil.

This viewpoint is promoted by everyone from Hollywood, children’s stories, the news media, to the Self-Defense Industry and the Sexual Violence Prevention Industry. They spread the Keep it Simple Stupid violence description because it is an effective marketing strategy for selling products and promoting self-serving agendas. Sell the Good Guys products to defend against the Bad Guys. Donate money and/or support government funding and save the Good Victims from the Evil Perpetrators. It works.

The reality is that violence is complicated. It is multi-layered. It is multi-dimensional. There are multiple factors that surround every incident of violence. There are many levels of violence. There is low level violence, mid-level and high level violence. There is violence that easily predicted and understood. There is logical violence. There is violence that runs darker and deeper than most people can perceive or imagine.

 

Violence comes with consequences. Sometimes these consequences are beneficial. Sometimes, they are not. Sometimes, Good Guys do bad things. Sometimes, Good Guys attract violence. Sometimes, Good Guys initiate violence. Sometimes, the violence is done in the name of Self-Defense, sometimes it is not. Sometimes, the Bad Guys are really, really bad. Sometimes, the Good Guys are not so good.

 

When someone wants to learn self-defense. He or she typically views himself as the Good Guy in need of protection from the Bad Guy. But what this person doesn’t really know is WHO or WHAT he or she needs protection FROM. WHAT are the real dangers this person faces, as opposed to his or her FEARS and beliefs? WHAT is this person willing and capable of doing to defend him or herself? WHY is this person most likely to be involved in violence and with WHO? WHAT are the most likely circumstances of the violence?

 

This person needs a map. Not just a simplistic one dimensional map that tells her how to get “safely” from Point A to Point B. But, a topographical map that lays out the entire landscape of violence with its multiple layers, levels, twists and turns, dizzying heights and bottomless holes. He needs to know that there are some places you just don’t go without the necessary skills, experience, and mindset not common to ordinary man. That means if the line between Point A and Point B takes you to a place you don’t belong, take another route regardless of your right and desire to maintain the straight and narrow.

 

If you view a typical topographical map, you will notice that the majority of the map is made up of wavy lines some distance apart. The tight concentric circles that make up the steep hills and mountains are less frequent. The wavy lines are the valleys, the rolling hills, the low levels of violence. This is the lower level encountered by most people most of the time. These are the common conflicts and confrontations that make up human life. The tight circles are the high mountain of violence that should be avoided by all but the most prepared and the most committed. The highly prepared, the unwitting and the unlucky find themselves on these Mountains of extreme violence.

What makes the Topography of Violence different than an ordinary landscape is that the terrain is subject to rapid change. Most of the time, these changes come with advance warnings, similar to tremors preceding an earthquake. But sometimes, the changes come quickly and provide only moments to transform a hill into a mountain. Individuals also have the power to influence their surrounding terrain. What they say and do can whip up a steep hill or reduce a mountain into a mole hill. A good Map clearly labels the impending warning signs of terrain change.

 

Danger occurs when you view a small section of the Map and think that section represents the entire landscape or Topography of Violence. You are prepared for the hills, but find yourself on a mountain. Your fear of the high violence of the mountains inhibits you from adequately dealing with the rolling hills and valleys of everyday conflict where your risk is much lower. Your strategies and social conditioning for surviving and thriving in the low lands may lead you to disaster in the highlands.

 

The journey of a thousand miles may begin with a single step. But, the journey of self-defense and effective conflict management begins with an accurate Map. One that allows you to view and negotiate the varied safe and hostile terrain.  A map you bought at street corner dojo or on the internet that claims to guide you to safety with simplistic solutions to stopping Bad Guys isn’t it.

 

On Techniques, Tactics, and Strategies

 

Why effective Techniques and Tactics don’t necessarily create effective Strategies

There are basic TACTICS that people use in response to confrontation and conflict. These responses are the sum of (1) their instinctive behaviors, (2) behaviors that are learned and conditioned from being a member of society, and  (3) behaviors that are learned and conditioned from specific training.

When these Tactics are combined into a sequence they form an overall STRATEGY.

The effectiveness of a Tactic  may be separate from the result of the Strategy. The effectiveness of a Strategy must take into consideration the consequences and chances of failure (risk) and depends upon the context of the situation.

A Strategy that works almost all of the time, but is subject to catastrophic failure may not be as effective as a Strategy that works the majority of the time, but the failures are of much less consequence.

For example, running across a busy street is an effective Tactic for getting to the other side. It is quicker and more direct than going to a foot bridge or crosswalk. But as an ongoing Strategy, it is not effective due to the high negative consequences of being struck by a car.

On the other hand, if you are being chased by a serial killer, you most likely will choose the running across Tactic over searching for a pedestrian crossing Tactic. The rational is that the risk of being caught by the serial killer out weights the risk of being struck by a car.

Thus, the Running Strategy for escape is more effective than the Cross-walk Strategy. Therefore, effective Tactics don’t necessarily make for effective Strategies and vice-versa. It all depends upon the context of the situation. Successive Tactics form the building blocks of a complex Strategy.

TECHNIQUES are the steps that create the Tactics. In the prior example. The technique of darting across the street in a manner that allows for high visibility and quick directional changes is more effective than a head down flat out sprint.  Darting is a technique that could be instinctual, or it could be environmentally learned or formally trained.

To summarize: Techniques make up Tactics which make up Strategies. The effectiveness of a Strategy is both dependent and independent of the effectiveness of the underlying Tactics and Techniques. Generally speaking, ineffective Techniques will lead to ineffective Tactics which create ineffective Strategies. But effective Techniques and Tactics don’t necessarily create an effective Strategy if the associated risk is too high. The associated risk depends upon the context of the situation.

Techniques + Technical Context create Tactics
Tactics + Tactical Context create Simple Strategies
Simple Strategies + Strategic Context create Comprehensive Strategies

Conclusion: Your well trained knockout punch Technique may build a poor self-defense Strategy. Your Tactic of brandishing a deadly weapon may also diminish your self-defense Strategy in certain situations. Your habit of submitting to confrontations may inhibit your   self-defense Strategy. On the other hand, your Tactic of quickly Mitigating mistakes and transitioning to different Tactics may dramatically increase the overall effectiveness of your self-defense Strategy. It all depends upon the context of the situation.

 

The Victim Blaming Accusation Lobby

The Victim Blaming Accusation Lobby has taken a worthwhile cause and morphed it into an extremist movement designed to silence and discredit all those that disagree with their point of view.

The worthwhile cause is victims of sexual assault should not be blamed by society for what transpired. They should not subject themselves to harmful self-blame. The blame should rest on the perpetrators of sexual assault. Unfortunately, this righteous cause has become dominated by the extremists I dub as the Victim Blaming Accusation Lobby (ABAL). The ABAL accuses anyone who takes into consideration Factors related to the victim of sexual assault as “blaming the victim”.

The ABAL uses flawed logical arguments to support its accusations. A popular strategy goes as follows:

If someone states that “a certain Victim Factor increases the odds of sexual assault”, the ABAL swings into action using the following strategy. The phrase Factor increases the odds is changed to Factor causes. Since, the reference relates to the Victim’s behavior or traits. The Accused person’s original sentence is translated to “Victim Factor causes sexual assault”.

The changed sentence creates the Victim Blaming Accusation. Next, the Factor is declared to be invalid because not having the Factor doesn’t prevent sexual assault. For example, since being sober does not prevent sexual assault, then being drunk does not increase the odds of sexual assault.

The argument is flawed in the same way as stating that “since not smoking doesn’t prevent lung cancer, then smoking does not increase the odds of lung cancer.”  The final logical proof is that since the perpetrator is to blame, nothing the victim did could have done caused the assault. Therefore, the Factor is declared invalid.

This methodology allows all Factors to be categorically denied without any investigation into the actual validity of the Factor.

The ABAL labels the Accused Person as a Victim-Blamer and asks the inevitable question of “Why is the Accused blaming the Victims as opposed to blaming the Perpetrators?”

Here are more flawed logical arguments used by the ABAL to discredit others with a different point of view.

1. Since no method works every time to prevent rape, no methods work to prevent rape.

2. Some victims could do nothing to prevent being raped, therefore all victims could do nothing to prevent being raped.

3. Examining the pre-assault behavior of the victim means NOT examining the behavior of the perpetrator.

4. Trying to change the pre-assault behavior of potential victims means NOT trying to change the behavior or perpetrators.

5. Focusing on certain pre-assault behaviors of some victims, means focusing on the pre-assault behavior of all victims.

6. Saying the victim has some responsibility is the same as saying that the perpetrator has no responsibility.

7. Since men don’t engage in rape risk reduction practices, women should not have to either.

The problem with the VBAL is that its mass accusations of Victim-Blaming results in alienating people and organizations who have a genuine interest in reducing the rate of sexual assault. It stifles all dialog and discussion that doesn’t adhere strictly to the VBAL Point of View.

The VBAL obsession with the concept of blame has made blame the central issue as opposed to making reducing the rate of sexual assault the central issue.

NOTE: This entire discussion is about Societal Violence Dynamics - The 6th Dimension of Self-Defense.

 

 

How Slippery Slope Logic Reveals that Feminists are Really Victim-Blamers

 

Enter into many discussions of controversial subjects and sooner or later you will be hit with the Slippery Slope Logic argument or accusation. It goes something like this:

You – “People who are drunk are more likely to be victimized by crime.”
Opponent - “You are blaming the Victim.”
You – “No. I said that a person who has certain Factors is at higher risk of being victimized.” Opponent – “You are a Victim-Blamer."
You - “No, I am not.”
Opponent – “Yes, you are!”
Once Slippery Slope Logic is introduced into the discussion, the discussion is likely to spiral into an argument with no resolution.

Slippery Slope Logic follows the pattern:

Many people think A.
Many people who think A, think B.
Many people who think B, think C.
Many people who think C, think D.
Thus, many people who think A, think D.

It “seems” logical. Thinking A leads to thinking D. Here’s the problem. Let’s say 40% or people is “many” people.

40% of A becomes B. 40% of B becomes C. 40% of C becomes D, so 40% of A becomes D.

WRONG!!! Actually, 6.4% of A become D. We could think of 6.4% as actually being few. Therefore, in reality, all else being equal, few people who think A, think D. The real problem with these arguments is the other underlying assumption that “all else being equal” is rarely true.

Slippery Slope Logic also shows how some becomes many which becomes most which becomes all as in labeling and stereotyping phrases such as “Men do this, or Women think that”.

Let’s take a look at the Victim-Blaming argument used against many self-defense instructors.

1.       Many self-defense instructors think that there are actions people can take to lower their risk of being victimized by crime.

2.       Thinking someone can do something to lower risk means thinking he or she has some control over what happens or had happened.

3.       Having some control means having some responsibility

4.       Having responsibility means you have fault for what happens.

5.       Therefore, self-defense instructors blame crime victims.

6.       Self-defense instructors are Victim-Blamers.

This type of logical is very effective because each step in the process seems to make “sense” if all else is equal. But remember, all else is rarely equal.

More Slippery Slope Logic:

              1. Victims don’t want to be victimized by crime.

2. Not wanting it means not inviting it.

3. Not inviting it means not doing anything to attract it.

4. Not attracting it mean no responsibility.

5. No responsibility means no control.

6. No control means no power.

7. No power means there was nothing the Victim could do to alter what happen to him/her.

8. Thus, anything that suggests anything to the contrary is Victim Blaming.

Are Feminists really Victim Blamers?

           1. Many Feminists think men and women are equals.

2. Thinking men and women are equal means thinking that women are as capable and powerful as men.

3. Being capable and powerful gives a woman control over her life.

4. Having control over her life means she can alter events.

5. Having the ability to alter events mean having responsibility.

6. Having responsibility means having fault for what happens.

7. Therefore, women who are victimized are to blame for what happens to them.

Slippery Slope Logic tells us that Feminists are Victim Blamers. Self-Defense instructors are Victim Blamers. The problem with labeling all these people as Victim Blamers is it puts them in the same category as the true Victim-Blamers. A true Victim-Blamer thinks “that woman deserved to be raped because she wore that dress”.

Victim-Blaming does exist. It is a real problem that needs to be addressed. It needs to be solved. But mass accusations of Victim-Blaming creates a backlash. It creates confusion. It diverts resources away from solving the real problem. Problem solving requires looking deeply into all the sources of the problem, not just cherry picking the sources that meet the requirements of promoting a particular agenda.

FOR THE RECORD:  I do not think that Feminists or Self-defense Instructors are Victim-Blamers. I used them as examples of the fallacy of Slippery Slope Logic.

 

 

Victim Factoring is Not Victim Blaming

 

Putting the blame on victims of a crime increases the psychological trauma associated with the crimes. It makes it less likely that the victims will report crimes in the future.  If crimes are not reported, it is more difficult to punish the offenders.  Perpetrators take less personal responsibility for their actions if they can blame the victim, thus making it more likely they will commit more crimes. Society feels less of a burden to expend resources to prevent these crimes from happening if the victims brought the crimes upon themselves.

The above arguments make logical sense. And if all crimes were completely random, meaning that EVERYONE has the exact same chance of being victimized by any particular crime, then anything statement that even hinted of victim blaming or victim responsibility would be categorically wrong.

The problem is that all crimes are NOT completely random. Some people have a greater chance of being victimized for crime than others. Having a greater chance of being victimized of a crime doesn’t make it your fault. What it means is that there are a number of Individual Factors that added together have the effect of raising or lowering your chances of being victimized by any particular crime. Some of these factors may be in your control, and some of these factors maybe out of your control.

If you would like to reduce your Personal Risk of being victimized by a crime, then you have to account for the multiple Individual Factors which affect the likelihood that you will be targeted for crime and how you will respond to such targeting. If you would like to reduce Societal Risk, then a person’s Individual Factors don’t matter.  Societal Risk is average risk of being victimized. Since that risk is an average of all people (or a certain defined class) in Society, individual actions have a negligible effect on the average risk.

It is the actions of the perpetrators of crime that has the greatest effect on Societal Risk. All things being equal, more perpetrators create more crime. Fewer perpetrators create less crime. But while Societal Risk may fluctuate by a few percentage points, say for example 2% - 10%, Individual Risk may fluctuate from less than 1% to 80% or higher.

It is in the best interest of those that focus on Societal Risk to claim any and all focus on Individual Risk is “Victim Blaming”. In the Societal Risk Model, individual actions are not relevant and are both a distraction and detriment to lowering Societal Risk. Therefore, any discussion of Individual Factors must be silenced by calling it “Victim Blaming”.

The problem is that what is good for Society is not necessarily good for the Individual and vice-versa. For example, if you are a woman and you don’t want to be sexually assaulted, the Societal Risk Model states that there is nothing you can do to lower your individual risk of sexual assault. The Power is in the hands of the perpetrators. Power and Blame are shown to go hand in hand.  Since you have no Power, you have no Blame. You have no Blame since you had no Power.  Since victims have no power, it is up to society to lower Societal Risk by focusing on perpetrators.

The Societal Risk Model has little to offer the individual who would like to lower his or her Individual Risk of being victimized. In fact, it discourages attempts to lower Individual Risk by labeling it “Victim Blaming”. Lowering Individual Risk requires examining all the Individual Factors that when taken as a whole add or subtract to a person’s risk of being victimized by a crime.

For example, some Individual Factors that raise the odds of being sexually assaulted are:

1.       Being female.

2.       Having a disability.

3.       Being an adolescent.

4.       Being drunk or under the influence of drugs.

5.       Being around people who are drunk or under the influence of drugs.

6.       Being homeless.

7.       Not being willing or able to set clear personal boundaries.

8.       Not being willing or able to be verbally assertive.

9.       Being easily intimidated.

10.   Having low self-worth.

11.   Being in a volatile relationship.

12.   Being in prison.

13.   Being around violent people.

14.   Working in the sex industry.

15.   Believing that “it” can’t happen to me.

16.   Feeling as if you have no power to alter the outcome of events.

17. Believing that Society is primarily responsible for your personal safety.

18. Being perceived as a someone will not report a violation.

19.   The list goes on.

And here are some Individual Factors that decrease your odds of being sexually assaulted:

1.       Being male.

2.       Not having a disability.

3.       Being middle aged.

4.       Not being drunk or under the influence of drugs.

5.       Not being around people who are drunk or under the influence of drugs.

6.       Having a secure home.

7.       Being willing and able to set clear personal boundaries.

8.       Being willing and able to be verbally assertive.

9.       Not being easily intimidated.

10.   Having high self-worth.

11.   Not being in a volatile relationship.

12.   Not being in prison.

13.   Not being around violent people.

14.   Not working in the sex industry.

15.   Not believing that “it” can’t happen to me.

16.   Not feeling as if you have no power to alter the outcome of events.

17. Believing that you are primarily responsible for your own personal safety.

18. Being perceived as someone who will report a violation.

19.   The list goes on.

The above list of individual factors is not complete. It varies from crime to crime.  It varies from place to place, from culture to culture. The underlying point is that Victim Factoring is NOT Victim Blaming. It is a specific methodology designed to lower an individual’s risk of being victimized by crime by examining all the factors involved.

Victim Factoring shows that an individual has some power to lower his or her Individual Risk of being victimized. It also shows that certain Factors are out of the person’s control. Sometimes, some Factors can be controlled, other times they can't. But what Victim Factoring does not do is to assign “blame” to the victim. Victim Blaming is a construct of the Societal Risk Model that while illuminating many ills and bias in society, is many times used as a tool to silence any discussion or focus on lowering Individual Risk.