# Mental Tai-sabaki



## theletch1 (Nov 24, 2007)

As martial artists we strive to head off conflict before it ever gets to technique.  We do this in various ways.  We stay out of areas that we know will raise our risk. We strive to put ego aside and not react to the bravado that many of us find we still have within us.  We use verbage designed to de-escalate a situation.  One of the things I can't really ever remember concentrating on during my training are the specifics of how, exactly, to do that.  We hear, "You have to do everything you can to avoid a physical confrontation"..."Fighting is a last resort"..."If you have to use technique then you've failed somewhere along the way" but aside from posture training, which is generally just how to be in a defensible stance without looking like it, we've never really discussed how to talk someone down.  How do all of you teach this aspect of the art or is it so variable depending on the situation that you feel it's best left to the individual to get it right when they have to?


----------



## tellner (Nov 24, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> As martial artists we strive to head off conflict before it ever gets to technique.


Except for the times when we believe it's inevitable and start it on our terms before they are completely ready so as to end it quickly. 



> We use verbage designed to de-escalate a situation.  One of the things I can't really ever remember concentrating on during my training are the specifics of how, exactly, to do that.


That's because very few people are trained in it. Most martial arts classes are about how to prevail in conflict of one sort or another. Even though Aikido encourages a humble and peaceful attitude the expression is physical, not verbal. There are graduate programs in mediation and conflict resolution. There are courses like Verbal Judo which specifically address these issues. There are some teachers who have personal expertise in the area and try to integrate it into class. 

It's also a very culture-specific thing. Japanese are not Javanese. Americans are not Andorrans. The same signals can have very different results. One of the things that sunk the *spit* Rajneeshees here in Oregon was their use of Indian conventions in an American political setting. As one of their former officers said "When you raise a sword to an Indian he submits. We though Americans would act the same way." 



> We hear, "You have to do everything you can to avoid a physical confrontation"..."Fighting is a last resort"..."If you have to use technique then you've failed somewhere along the way"


One problem is that all of these are at least partly false. 

There are things that are much worse than getting into a fight. I will take a reasonable amount of crap to keep the peace. I will not allow friends or family to be put in danger or even humiliated. 

Sometimes a little violence now is the best way to avoid a lot of violence later. People who want to take something from you will generally do so until they decide that the price they are about to pay is greater than whatever it is they're about to take from you. The earlier you raise the cost, the less you have to do down the road. And once you get in the habit of giving in or backing down, even if it's only for a couple minutes, you have made it more difficult to move towards the proactive and to get him to stop whatever it was he was doing to you. 

Unless you have incredible powers of persuasion and the Divine Aura of Compassionate Kwan Yin you can't control another person's actions and desire. You can try to de-escalate. You can avoid provoking him. But in the end his actions are his responsibility, not yours. 

The first serious fight I ever got in was over something I had absolutely no control over and which he was dead set on using to start a fight with due to training he received from the cradle. Did I want to hurt him? No. Of course not. Did I avoid him? Yes, but that doesn't work in a chronic situation. So I waited for the time when I knew he was going to attack and took him down in a efficiently brutal fashion while he was still woofing and throwing haymakers. 

The rapist is responsible for the rape, not the victim. It isn't her "fault" that he is a monster or a failure on her part if he won't listen to reason. The crime and the legal, medical and karmic results of the crime are entirely his. She shouldn't waste a single tear or suffer a moment's remorse over whatever she has to do to stop him with minimum risk to herself.


----------



## amir (Nov 25, 2007)

Just one thing to remember:

Mental \ verbal Tai-Sabaki should not mean you are giving up your position and lets an aggressor get his wishes. That would be surrendering and not Tai-Sabaki nor Aikido solution to the situation.

In Aikido, when we give in to a push, we do not turn the other chick, rather we trap our aggressor and bring him into our control.
The same should go for Mental \ verbal Tai-Sabaki.



As previously mentioned, it is nearly  impossible to give definite solutions for this stage. Every situation is different, and the solutions may vary too. 
My Sensei tries to teach students about this after class, by telling us various Samurai and personal stories. Each student will hear different stories, depending on Sensei current perceptions of the student current state of mind. Part of the lesson of these stories is to force us to keep our minds open, and remember we have lots of options to react.
One example my Sensei likes to give, is the difference in human response to someone who starts his sentence with acknowledging the others feelings. He often tells of situations in which he won by starting with "You are right, I am sorry for not considering ... disturbs you ..." and tells often the other side feels compelled to win by being even more courteous towards you. Obviously, not all situations can be won this way, and in some situations one should be bold and aggressive, just like one has both Tenkan and Irimi tai-Sabaki  responses.


Amir


----------



## Yari (Nov 26, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> As martial artists we strive to head off conflict before it ever gets to technique. ........ We hear, "You have to do everything you can to avoid a physical confrontation"..."Fighting is a last resort"..."If you have to use technique then you've failed somewhere along the way" but aside from posture training,........... How do all of you teach this aspect of the art or is it so variable depending on the situation that you feel it's best left to the individual to get it right when they have to?


 

I've come to the conclusion that many instructors don't know what they are talking about. They say these things as an auto reponse, and don't offer anything to show how to do it. 

Sometimes I find it easier to do a physical technique than these "soft" techniques. I think it's because that the physical technique is based on a "fixed attack", and it's easier to "see" intensions and possiblities. But with verbal techniques it's different, combined with the fact that anything can go in in a verbal confrontation. 

But if you "get " the verbal techniques, and understand how the work. Your basis for SD will be enhanched many folded. It's like becoming a more inetgraded person, and thus becoming more one with yourself, and then being more effective.

I would recommend everbody to find good conflict courses to participate and integrate it in to your own SD style.

/Yari


----------



## morph4me (Nov 26, 2007)

Yari said:


> I've come to the conclusion that many instructors don't know what they are talking about. They say these things as an auto reponse, and don't offer anything to show how to do it.
> 
> Sometimes I find it easier to do a physical technique than these "soft" techniques. I think it's because that the physical technique is based on a "fixed attack", and it's easier to "see" intensions and possiblities. But with verbal techniques it's different, combined with the fact that anything can go in in a verbal confrontation.
> 
> ...


 

I have to agree. Verbal techniques require a correct read of the situation and the individual which is more subtle than reading a physical attack. 

Some people will read the verbal judo approach as manipulation or weakness, others won't even notice what's happpening and others require enthusiastic disagreeement in order to be disuaded from going to the next step.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 26, 2007)

I think the most common situation is what Marc MacYoung calls "Escalato".  It's the typical verbal argument where each party keeps raising the verbal stakes until physical force is used because there is no other out for either party without losing face.  This would be your typical "bar fight" scenario.

As others have stated it is situational and you need to know the time/place for such techniques.  If someone pulls a gun on you and only wants your wallet, are you really going to be able to talk him down?  On the other hand, are you going to be able to possibly talk someone down that is mad because he thought you were "lookin' at his girl"?  

I think most (not talking about criminal assaults, such as rape, robbery, etc. where a whole different list of precontact things come into play) situations are one or both of the parties is mad at life and they are looking for an excuse or a person to take it out from.  In defusing the situation, they need to realize that they have nothing to gain by fighting with you. And they also have to have a way out that they can make that decision and exit while saving face.  If you take away (in their eyes) that aspect, they may chose to fight no matter what to save face. 

Someone mentioned "verbal judo", and my dept. sent me to that class and even the instructor was very forthright that it was designed for "on the fence" people so to speak.  It was a way to get people that could go either way to comply with what you wanted.  That being said, there are some people that have already made the decision to act and nothing you say can influence their choice.  If it gets to that point, you need to understand putting up your hands in a defensive posture so you are protected, and saying in a loud voice something like "Get away, I don't want to fight" to show witnesses that you are trying to deescalate and leave the situation.

Get a training partner and role play different scenarios, or better yet practice with our family and friends and see what works and what doesn't.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for the responses, guys.  I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate that aspect into class for a while and couldn't come up with anything that might work.  You've all given good reasons as to why.  It's just far too situational for any "techniques" beyond the most vague to be worked out.

I do want to address Tellner's post for a moment, though, because I feel that he's hit on a point that is very important to discuss.  I've read other posts of Tellner's where in he has avoided danger by being aware of his surroundings and picking up on the subtle, tell tail signals from those around him without ever getting to the verbal judo side of things.  He states in his post in this thread that:
*"Sometimes a little violence now is the best way to avoid a lot of violence later. People who want to take something from you will generally do so until they decide that the price they are about to pay is greater than whatever it is they're about to take from you. The earlier you raise the cost, the less you have to do down the road. And once you get in the habit of giving in or backing down, even if it's only for a couple minutes, you have made it more difficult to move towards the proactive and to get him to stop whatever it was he was doing to you."*

So many of us have had it drilled into us since childhood that you never fight for any reason, that you have to take a load of crap to be accepted in society, that you can't defend yourself for fear of lawsuits that the idea that spawned my OP is almost instinctive.  Is there a point at which you can see, not really instigating, but allowing an aggressor to, well, be aggressive to put an end to what could be an ongoing harrassment?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> So many of us have had it drilled into us since childhood that you never fight for any reason, that you have to take a load of crap to be accepted in society, that you can't defend yourself for fear of lawsuits that the idea that spawned my OP is almost instinctive. Is there a point at which you can see, not really instigating, but allowing an aggressor to, well, be aggressive to put an end to what could be an ongoing harrassment?


 
There are times when you can let someone bluster briefly, and they'll back down.  There are times that you can give someone a way to save face, and they'll cooperate, when if you don't give them that face saving way out, they'll be absolutely uncooperative.

But there's also the time to recognize that there's nothing you can do to prevent violence, and that you have the choice of acting or reacting.  One of Verbal Judo's catch phrases is a last chance option; the program teaches you to ask something along the lines of "Is there anything I can do to get you to voluntarily comply?"  That's a warning phrase to a partner; if I hear my partner ask something like that, I know to be ready to go hands on.  It's also a great tool to show that you tried to avoid violence in a civilian self-defense encounter.


----------



## Yari (Nov 27, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> .........
> So many of us have had it drilled into us since childhood that you never fight for any reason, that you have to take a load of crap to be accepted in society, that you can't defend yourself for fear of lawsuits that the idea that spawned my OP is almost instinctive. Is there a point at which you can see, not really instigating, but allowing an aggressor to, well, be aggressive to put an end to what could be an ongoing harrassment?


 
This is true, I think, for many people. Don't hit, don't use force to get your way, or responed to an action. Which is true, but what they frget is that they take away the root trigger that triggered the person to use force. And that is bad. Because the root trigger is OK, it's they way you handled the situaiton that can be dicussed.

I'm not sure that I'm writting this correctly, so I'll try and examplefy this:
Let's say that somebody comes and starts to brutalize you, and your response was to hit them. Because you didnøt like it and wanted them to stop. You are now told (maybe even put in jail....), that voilence is wrong, and that you should not use violence. Invalidating your feeeling that you should have done something. I feel that whant should have happened, was that that it's is correct to feel that you shoould defend yourself, and do something else (first) before hitting the guy.

Hope you get my idea in the dicusstion.

/Yari


----------

