# self defense until im old



## nicerdicer (Sep 30, 2015)

Hey forum,

I'm looking for an effective martial art that you can practise until youre old. no high kicks, no hardcore sparring, etc.

ive been looking into tai chi and it seems to have some solid applications. I also looked into "attack proof", i cant make up my mind about it and i cant afford to go their seminars as i live in germany. 

does anyone have a good idea?

Please dont tell me how every style is effective etc. most teachers cant teach effective self defense because they dont have a clue on how an attack goes about. Im looking for a style that USUALLY has effectove self defense in mind.

TKD, JIu jitsu, krav maga are cool and all buti cant see myself doing these styles when im 70 or older. some may be able to do that but the chances are pretty low.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 30, 2015)

I find my martial art - JKD/Kali offers many things for all ages and I will find things I am being taught now that I can use when I am 70.

Example Kali includes a lot of stick fighting and my school occasionally offers a special form of this with cane fighting classes.  I also think the plain old boxing fundamentals we learn are simple effective and direct and work for most anyone of any age.  Locks and joint manipulations I think are very low energy methods.


----------



## Buka (Sep 30, 2015)

I guess it would depend on what's around you. I'd go checkout a Tai Chi place if there's one.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Sep 30, 2015)

Like everyone here I am biased to my own art.  uechi-ryu might be a good choice. it may look hard  core but take a look at some YouTube videos and notice the ages of the masters.  It's a solid art and you can keep training well into your golden years.  Tomoyose I think is in his 90s.   It is important to train in a way that keeps you fit and healthy.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 30, 2015)

Any art can be practiced for your whole life; the expression of your practice and especially of your application will change as you age, as you collect injuries, and as you deepen your understanding.  So, instead of worrying about how long you can train, find the one you want to train in for your whole life.


----------



## Gnarlie (Oct 1, 2015)

Two questions: where in Germany are you, and how old are you now?

There are practical elements to all the martial arts you mention which can still be practiced into old age.

For example, although TKD may be famous for high kicks, I know of a taekwondo group for senior citizens that focuses mainly on applied striking for self defence. Their youngest members are over 60, and their highest kicks are to the knee or shin. Your expression of your art changes as you age. Get enough experience while you are young, and the art won't matter, you will be able to tailor your own training.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Oct 1, 2015)

nicerdicer said:


> TKD, JIu jitsu, krav maga are cool and all buti cant see myself doing these styles when im 70 or older. some may be able to do that but the chances are pretty low.


 Our oldest member, who is in his mid-60s, recently earned his 4th dan in Koryu Bujutsu (ju jutsu).  It tends to be a harder form, and I wouldn't recommend it for a 60+ y.o. beginner, but you should be able to do most forms as long as you listen to your body and have training partners who are respectful. 
Good luck.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 1, 2015)

nicerdicer said:


> Hey forum,
> 
> I'm looking for an effective martial art that you can practise until youre old. no high kicks, no hardcore sparring, etc.[...]
> 
> when im 70 or older.


Judo or BJJ.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2015)

1) Almost _any_ martial art can be trained into your 70s. What changes is _how_ you train.
2) You aren't going to get a lot of consensus here on what counts as "effective". Also, what is effective in one context may not be so effective in another.
3) In my personal opinion, effectiveness depends as much or more on _how_ you train than which art you train.
4) Most people don't have the drive or physical condition to seriously train in a martial art in their 70s at all, let alone train it in such a way that makes them effective at fighting. If you want to be the exception, I recommend you start when you are younger, find a martial art that you love enough to spend a lifetime working at it, and then train smart so as not to damage your body to the point where you can't train.
5) Hard sparring is a good thing if you want to develop actual fighting skill. I recommend getting in your share of hard sparring when you are young so you can retain the lessons it teaches you as you get older and have to scale back your sparring.
5) Self-defense is mostly about things other than fighting skills. Hopefully you should have a firm grasp on those things well before you reach your 70s.
6) If you want to be a genuinely dangerous fighter into your 70s and beyond, I strongly recommend some sort of weapon-based art.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 1, 2015)

*Everyone has made great comments above*.  You really can train in any art as you get older.  However, you may not be as effective as you would like to be in some systems when you are elderly.  My advice would be to find a system that emphasizes utilizing tools/weapons such as the Filipino Martial Arts, Silat, Bando, Takamatsu Den lineages, etc.  If you can utilizing tools/weapons even in your old age you can be really effective!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 2, 2015)

Boxing....

Look at an old person winning a fight and more likley than not the guy has boxed.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 4, 2015)

nicerdicer said:


> Hey forum,
> 
> I'm looking for an effective martial art that you can practise until youre old. no high kicks, no hardcore sparring, etc.



Hmm. I'm going to start off sounding a bit harsh here… but the simple fact of the matter is that you are not in a position to dictate how a system works, or what is considered effective training or not. You don't want high kicks… okay, don't train an art that has high kicks (such as TKD or Savate… of course, I note that you're already training in TKD, so saying you don't want your own art is a bit, well… odd). You don't want "hardcore sparring"? For one thing, that's fairly vague… and will mean different things in different contexts… but the real thing to realise is that, if that's considered the way the art achieves effectiveness, you don't get to dictate what they do or not (or why).



nicerdicer said:


> ive been looking into tai chi and it seems to have some solid applications. I also looked into "attack proof", i cant make up my mind about it and i cant afford to go their seminars as i live in germany.



If you aren't in a position to attend the classes, then what's the point in considering them? For the record, they're heavy on fear tactics in their marketing rhetoric, and very light on good, informed understanding and methodology, so I'm not a fan of "Attack Proof"… Taiji… well, it depends on who you're training with, and so on.



nicerdicer said:


> does anyone have a good idea?



Yeah, look around, visit schools that are available to you, and make up your mind based on that.



nicerdicer said:


> Please dont tell me how every style is effective etc. most teachers cant teach effective self defense because they dont have a clue on how an attack goes about. Im looking for a style that USUALLY has effectove self defense in mind.



Yeah… you really don't get to dictate how people answer, you know… especially when such an answer would be, well, the truth in many cases.



nicerdicer said:


> TKD, JIu jitsu, krav maga are cool and all buti cant see myself doing these styles when im 70 or older. some may be able to do that but the chances are pretty low.



If you can't see yourself training it, honestly, that's an issue of your beliefs. Plenty of older people do train in such things. But, really, you're 25… such considerations are a long way off… don't worry about them, worry about today. That way you can get to still be training when you're 70. Thinking about acting as an old man when you're a young man doesn't help the situation at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2015)

I'll second much of what Chris said, above. When you are 25, you don't need to train as a 70-year-old. Train for who you are now. What you learn will mostly be transferrable, as principles, to what you can do when you're much older.

Whether you want to hear it or not, any (well-designed) style can be effective for self-defense. And any (well-defined) style can be crap for self-defense. The difference is largely in how it is taught. I could easily teach my style for show, for competition, or for fitness. I choose to teach it for self-defense, and focus on developing competence in that area for my students. That attitude makes far more difference than the art.

So, as Chris and others have said: go visit some schools. Ask how they prepare folks for self-defense. Look for something that seems fun to you (the more fun, the more you'll train, and the better you'll get) and has the focus you want. Then train like you want to be an expert when you're 70.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Flatfish (Oct 5, 2015)

Most people's interest in extracurricular activities fluctuates over time. While there are certainly a good number of people who have been training in MA all their lives I think it's fairly save to say that they are in the minority. 
There are also many folks on here who trained in their younger years, then took an extended break, mostly due to this pesky thing called "life" that happened and took a lot of their time. Then they rediscovered their interest in MA later in life and started anew with something else or picked up their original art again.
Who knows what is going to happen to your interest/ability to train MA in 5 or 10 years. You are young, so study an art that you are interested in and that you can find a good school for that teaches good self defense. If you continue to train until old age you will adjust your training according to what your body is able to do. But you also might stop training for a time at least or become interested in something else down the line. No need to worry about 50 years ahead.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 6, 2015)

nicerdicer said:


> Hey forum,
> 
> I'm looking for an effective martial art that you can practise until youre old. no high kicks, no hardcore sparring, etc.
> 
> ...



This is Tatang Illustrisimo doing a bit of sparring, his is 85 I believe in this video.  I would like to move like that when I'm 50.   I would love to see what he looked like when he made his rep at half this age.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 9, 2015)

SD is Threat & Awareness Evaluation, Coopers Colour Codes, Target Hardening,  The Fence and familiarising yourself with the Rituals of Violence.  Once you have these skills, then in the majority of cases the only thing you need is a good strong punch.  As Geoff Thompson says, "I train for the first shot, it's all I need".

As for picking an art, I would just try everything that's available, and pick the one you enjoy the most, as if you enjoy it you are more likely to stick with it and therefore become good at it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> pick the one you enjoy the most, as if you enjoy it you are more likely to stick with it and therefore become good at it.


This is really the key. If you want to be training into your 70s, you better pick an art that you love enough to keep working at even when all your joints are creaking and aching.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> SD is Threat & Awareness Evaluation, Coopers Colour Codes, Target Hardening,  The Fence and familiarising yourself with the Rituals of Violence.  Once you have these skills, then in the majority of cases the only thing you need is a good strong punch.  As Geoff Thompson says, "I train for the first shot, it's all I need".
> 
> As for picking an art, I would just try everything that's available, and pick the one you enjoy the most, as if you enjoy it you are more likely to stick with it and therefore become good at it.



Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?


Available evidence indicates that for many people the answer is yes. They really have no clue of how to avoid fights.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?



Yup. As evidenced by how common fights are. And I think almost all of us, even those of who might be pretty good at avoiding fights, could benefit from more knowledge on the subject...


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?


It's a common mistake amongst male martial artists to mistake fighting with self defence.  I was thinking more in terms of avoiding unwanted criminal interest, muggers, sexual predators etc that sort for thing.  Which is self defence.

Streets fights are illegal and take place  between two (or more) participants, all of whom are willing.  The purpose is to defeat their opponent.

If one party is not willing, then it is assault and requires self defence (should it have gotten that far due mostly to a lack of the skills I previously mentioned).  Self defence is legal, and the purpose is not to defeat the other person, it is only to create the opportunity to facilitate escape.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Oct 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?


Big egos and mouth, get most people in trouble.....


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> If one party is not willing, then it is assault and requires self defence (should it have gotten that far due mostly to a lack of the skills I previously mentioned). Self defence is legal, and the purpose is not to defeat the other person, it is only to create the opportunity to facilitate escape.



Most people really don't get into street fights and manage that with no training. And it is easier to escape if the other guy is defeated.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2015)

EddieCyrax said:


> Big egos and mouth, get most people in trouble.....



Dosent explain bullying.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Oct 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Dosent explain bullying.



Agreed, I guess?!?

Confused?!?  Are you mixing up threads?!?  I see no discussion on Bullying here....

Conversation as I have read this thread was on why most people fail to avoid or deescalate conflict.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2015)

EddieCyrax said:


> Agreed, I guess?!?
> 
> Confused?!?  Are you mixing up threads?!?  I see no discussion on Bullying here....
> 
> Conversation as I have read this thread was on why most people fail to avoid or deescalate conflict.



If someone is bullied and therefore has failed to avoid conflict. You don't blame the victim because the triggers are different. Your bog standard street fight conflict can be a combination of either.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Oct 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If someone is bullied and therefore has failed to avoid conflict. You don't blame the victim because the triggers are different. Your bog standard street fight conflict can be a combination of either.



Please reconcile this with your post #18.....I admittedly have a head cold today..... but struggle to follow.

I generally agree here, just seems the conversation took a left turn that I am not following.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2015)

EddieCyrax said:


> Please reconcile this with your post #18.....I admittedly have a head cold today..... but struggle to follow.
> 
> I generally agree here, just seems the conversation took a left turn that I am not following.



Bullying occurs in part because people are so good at avoiding fights. It allows for predatory behaviour. We are not talking about an in depth system of tactics here. We are talking about this.

A colour code system to tell me where I am in a fight.






So if I am getting punched in the mouth am I in red or black? or just mabye I should stop the guy punching me in the mouth.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are people really that incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight?



I'm going to be a little blunt here… the fact that you ask that question tells me that you have a very limited understanding of the nature of violence.

I'll put it this way… can you outline some basic tactical approaches for avoiding conflict in the context of social violence? Then contrast that with asocial violence? Can you detail body language approaches designed to minimise being targeted? How about if you're in a different area… does it change? If so, how? What about your choice of words… or colours worn? Or simple dress sense in the first place? What's the difference between passive and aggressive de-escalation? How do you know which to apply? When do you escalate, rather than de-escalate? How do you do that? What is involved in verbal de-escalation? How does that change in social and asocial violence contexts? How does a social group help you, and how does it hinder you (opening you up to potential attack)?

Finally, how much of this is covered by people's lack of training?



drop bear said:


> Most people really don't get into street fights and manage that with no training.



It's a very different thing not getting into fights and avoiding fights, though… and the fact that most people don't get involved in fights doesn't highlight that they avoid them, it's that they're not in a situation that has a violent component at that point. I mean… most people don't end up in screaming arguments every time they talk to someone either… it's not because everyone is always nice, it's that an argument requires certain things to be present. You don't avoid an argument by not having one… 



drop bear said:


> And it is easier to escape if the other guy is defeated.



Yeah… again, a very limited understanding of the nature of violence… 



drop bear said:


> Dosent explain bullying.



Which is something entirely different.



drop bear said:


> If someone is bullied and therefore has failed to avoid conflict.



Avoiding conflict wasn't what you said, though… you asked if "people were so incapable so as to not know how to avoid a fight". So… this isn't the same thing at all.



drop bear said:


> You don't blame the victim because the triggers are different. Your bog standard street fight conflict can be a combination of either.



It's incredibly rare that a "bog standard street fight" is anything to do with bullying, though. It can be about many things, but bullying is a behaviour typically targeted specifically, and applying intimidation, rather than physical confrontation/violence. But, again, this is not what was being talked about.



drop bear said:


> Bullying occurs in part because people are so good at avoiding fights. It allows for predatory behaviour.



Er, what? No, that's really completely inaccurate on a number of levels. Bullying occurs because some people have a need for a sense of power and control over others… it has nothing to do with anyone being "good at avoiding fights"… and being good at avoiding fights has nothing to do with allowing "predatory behaviour"… which is a bit different again to bullying… so… no.



drop bear said:


> We are not talking about an in depth system of tactics here. We are talking about this.
> 
> A colour code system to tell me where I am in a fight.



Er, yes, when we're talking about fight avoidance, yes, we are talking about an in-depth set of tactics… the colour code being part of one such set, actually. Mind you, it's not to "tell you where you are in a fight"… it's kinda "you're in a fight" or "you're not in one…yet".



drop bear said:


> So if I am getting punched in the mouth am I in red or black? or just mabye I should stop the guy punching me in the mouth.



You're in the black. But, more realistically, that's completely irrelevant. And no-one is suggesting that, should you be being attacked, you shouldn't try to fight back, stop them, or defend yourself. You're completely misreading a whole slew of concepts here.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2015)

Cooper's Color Code has been massively misused and misquoted over the last few years.  It's a tool to assess preparedness levels and mindsets, not danger or what's happening.  In other words, they're about YOU, not what's around you.  In Condition White, your guard is completely down.  In Condition Yellow, you're aware, looking around, but there's nothing triggering you get ready for specific threats.  A soldier or police officer on patrol, a bouncer watching the crowd... In Condition Orange, things have escalated -- you've seen something, even if you can't put your finger on it yet, that has caused you to make some definite preparations.  A cop may have been dispatched to a call, a bouncer may have noticed a change in the flow of the crowd, you may notice someone standing on the side of the road that doesn't feel right...  Preparation might mean changing your route, or making sure you can access your gun.  In Condition Red, you've made the decision to act.  The threat has materialized, and you're doing something about it.  In Cooper's original model, you've decided to use lethal force, and the fight is on.  Condition Black was added by various people at different points; it wasn't in Cooper's model. It's often used to signify that you've jumped from White or Yellow without changing gears into the fight -- in short, you're panicking.  

As a hint... folks generally figure out when they're in a fight, at least if they're conscious after the initial attack.    What they often miss are the precursors and build up to it.  Folks like Marc MacYoung and Rory Miller have done some good work on the communication patterns and behaviors that lead to a fight -- but they're far from alone.  They just happen to be at the top of my mind right now.  Jim Glennon is another one, from the police world.  The big problem is that you have to be alert and looking to start seeing these indicators, and you have to recognize patterns as they develop.  A good book that I found about this is Left of Bang, which modifies training developed for the Marines to a wider audience.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I'm going to be a little blunt here… the fact that you ask that question tells me that you have a very limited understanding of the nature of violence.
> 
> I'll put it this way… can you outline some basic tactical approaches for avoiding conflict in the context of social violence? Then contrast that with asocial violence? Can you detail body language approaches designed to minimise being targeted? How about if you're in a different area… does it change? If so, how? What about your choice of words… or colours worn? Or simple dress sense in the first place? What's the difference between passive and aggressive de-escalation? How do you know which to apply? When do you escalate, rather than de-escalate? How do you do that? What is involved in verbal de-escalation? How does that change in social and asocial violence contexts? How does a social group help you, and how does it hinder you (opening you up to potential attack)?
> 
> Finally, how much of this is covered by people's lack of training?



I have never met anybody who can teach it with more information than the dumb stuff like color codes.

I can do it to varying milage but couldn't teach it and don't pretend to. The biggest issue you have is that what works for one person may not work for another. And then it has a lot to do with pitch and tone. A lot of very subtle tricks. And to get it you have to engage in a bulk load of conflict.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Cooper's Color Code has been massively misused and misquoted over the last few years.  It's a tool to assess preparedness levels and mindsets, not danger or what's happening.  In other words, they're about YOU, not what's around you.  In Condition White, your guard is completely down.  In Condition Yellow, you're aware, looking around, but there's nothing triggering you get ready for specific threats.  A soldier or police officer on patrol, a bouncer watching the crowd... In Condition Orange, things have escalated -- you've seen something, even if you can't put your finger on it yet, that has caused you to make some definite preparations.  A cop may have been dispatched to a call, a bouncer may have noticed a change in the flow of the crowd, you may notice someone standing on the side of the road that doesn't feel right...  Preparation might mean changing your route, or making sure you can access your gun.  In Condition Red, you've made the decision to act.  The threat has materialized, and you're doing something about it.  In Cooper's original model, you've decided to use lethal force, and the fight is on.  Condition Black was added by various people at different points; it wasn't in Cooper's model. It's often used to signify that you've jumped from White or Yellow without changing gears into the fight -- in short, you're panicking.
> 
> As a hint... folks generally figure out when they're in a fight, at least if they're conscious after the initial attack.    What they often miss are the precursors and build up to it.  Folks like Marc MacYoung and Rory Miller have done some good work on the communication patterns and behaviors that lead to a fight -- but they're far from alone.  They just happen to be at the top of my mind right now.  Jim Glennon is another one, from the police world.  The big problem is that you have to be alert and looking to start seeing these indicators, and you have to recognize patterns as they develop.  A good book that I found about this is Left of Bang, which modifies training developed for the Marines to a wider audience.



Please. You do it anyway. Unless you get an idea that something is on. And then you are working out what to do. Not stuffing around with colour codes.

So from a pub perspective. You go to a pub that normally has four guys on the door and it has no guards. Now you are either going to know that it is an indication that there is a big fight inside or you are not. Regardless of your colour.

Now then you are going to go in there or avoid it. Regardless of your colour.

And if you get caught in a mele you are going to fight or not regardless of your colour.

If you are relying on feelings. You are relying on a flawed system. Peoples feelings are all over the place.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> It's incredibly rare that a "bog standard street fight" is anything to do with bullying, though. It can be about many things, but bullying is a behaviour typically targeted specifically, and applying intimidation, rather than physical confrontation/violence. But, again, this is not what was being talked about.



So a street fight doesn't target someone specifically and apply intimidation?

Street fights are not started by guys who think they can win them?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> It's a very different thing not getting into fights and avoiding fights, though… and the fact that most people don't get involved in fights doesn't highlight that they avoid them, it's that they're not in a situation that has a violent component at that point. I mean… most people don't end up in screaming arguments every time they talk to someone either… it's not because everyone is always nice, it's that an argument requires certain things to be present. You don't avoid an argument by not having one…



Most people who teach deescalation don't have any life experience in that area.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… again, a very limited understanding of the nature of violence…



OK. This is not an argument. You haven't made a point. So do you have one? Or just this vague smack talk.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I have never met anybody who can teach it with more information than the dumb stuff like color codes.



Can you answer the questions I posed? Oh, and for the record, you have met someone who can teach it with far more than the "colour codes" (I really don't use them at all, by the way). At least, you've had contact with them… and I hazard that there are far more than you realise.



drop bear said:


> I can do it to varying milage but couldn't teach it and don't pretend to.



Okay… but here's the thing. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean that others can't. Or do.



drop bear said:


> The biggest issue you have is that what works for one person may not work for another. And then it has a lot to do with pitch and tone. A lot of very subtle tricks. And to get it you have to engage in a bulk load of conflict.



Well, you're right… you couldn't teach this stuff.

Here's the thing… things like pitch and tone are a big part of the lessons (in verbal de-escalation)… different contexts and contingencies are covered… and no, you don't have to "engage in a bulk load of conflict"… you do, however, have to have a good, well designed training methodology, largely based in drills and scenario training.



drop bear said:


> Please. You do it anyway. Unless you get an idea that something is on. And then you are working out what to do. Not stuffing around with colour codes.
> 
> So from a pub perspective. You go to a pub that normally has four guys on the door and it has no guards. Now you are either going to know that it is an indication that there is a big fight inside or you are not. Regardless of your colour.
> 
> ...



Er… what? You brought up the colour code to indicate awareness that you, having been punched, were in a fight… because you seem to think that people already know how to avoid a fight… which you show by having an indication of being in one (not avoided)… JKS explains some pertinent details about the code… and you come back with this, which says… what? That's it's all useless?

Seriously, what are you saying?



drop bear said:


> So a street fight doesn't target someone specifically and apply intimidation?



It may, and it may not. But the point is that it is not the same format as bullying… I really don't think you have much of an idea what that actually is, though.



drop bear said:


> Street fights are not started by guys who think they can win them?



What does that have to do with anything I said? Seriously, what are you arguing with?



drop bear said:


> Most people who teach deescalation don't have any life experience in that area.



According to your belief, which amounts to having no idea, yeah?



drop bear said:


> OK. This is not an argument. You haven't made a point. So do you have one? Or just this vague smack talk.



My argument is simple. Your posts show a deep, desperate lack of understanding of the nature of violence outside of the small, highly limited experience you've had.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, you're right… you couldn't teach this stuff.
> 
> Here's the thing… things like pitch and tone are a big part of the lessons (in verbal de-escalation)… different contexts and contingencies are covered… and no, you don't have to "engage in a bulk load of conflict"… you do, however, have to have a good, well designed training methodology, largely based in drills and scenario training.



So how are you getting the deescalation skills? You cannot test deescalation with role play because the person you are testing it on is not emotionally involved. So from scenarios you can't have a good well designed training methodology. You have to field test it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> My argument is simple. Your posts show a deep, desperate lack of understanding of the nature of violence outside of the small, highly limited experience you've had.



Your opinion in this is wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> What does that have to do with anything I said? Seriously, what are you arguing with?




OK. Sorry I will explain this more simply. This is street fighting and its link to bullying and even a bit of deescalation for you.

Bullying occurs in part because people are allowed to. The victim is chosen as someone who can't or won't fight back. In the same street fight victims in part are chosen as someone who can't or won't fight back.

This common element of violence is either intentionally or unintentionally predatory.

This comes to an old bouncer saying "your deescalation skills improve comparative to the size of your oponant"

This is one aspect of violence that seems to be ignored in some desperate attempt to separate street fighting from other crimes of violence.

So your opinion that a bog standard street fight has nothing to do with bullying is wrong. There can be a similar motivation.

*It may, and it may not. But the point is that it is not the same format as bullying… I really don't think you have much of an idea what that actually is, though.*

OK. See here is where you just loose the plot. You set up the standards for what is bullying. And then just change those standards when they are met. It is your format for bullying not mine.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way… can you outline some basic tactical approaches for avoiding conflict in the context of social violence? Then contrast that with asocial violence? Can you detail body language approaches designed to minimise being targeted? How about if you're in a different area… does it change? If so, how? What about your choice of words… or colours worn? Or simple dress sense in the first place? What's the difference between passive and aggressive de-escalation? How do you know which to apply? When do you escalate, rather than de-escalate? How do you do that? What is involved in verbal de-escalation? How does that change in social and asocial violence contexts? How does a social group help you, and how does it hinder you (opening you up to potential attack)?



If there looks like drama. Leave.

Don't be a duchebag.

This works most of the time. Otherwise it gets complicated.

By the way. Passive and aggressive escalation and deescalation you do at the same time. So it is not a when. It is how much of each you are applying


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Don't be a duchebag.



Aside from spelling, I have to agree. This is entirely my own experience, and since nearly two years ago, when I moved 30 miles from a sh***y neighborhood to a poor but pleasant neighborhood of a very nice town, I think I can honesty say I haven't been in a single situation where I though a "fight" was brewing. But yeah, for me, as a young, perhaps slightly disreputable looking but mostly very friendly male, I agree.

My wife, as a small, pretty, very passive looking woman has had a very different experience with how one avoids violence.

For me, a mixture of bravado and an apparent disinterest, all the while maintaining a psuedo-friendly disposition seems to do the trick. You smile, you joke, you feign boredom, you make sure the other guy notices you're bracing to smash his face, and the situation diffuses. Because, as a young male, anyone looking to start triuble with me wants to prove something. You show them that:
1. They have nothing to prove, i.e. you have no interest in fighting them, and:
2. You're not an easy target, and
Bam, there ya go, problem solved.

Back to my wife.

None of that will work for her. A guy getting aggressive with a 110 pound redhead with big eyes isn't looking to prove his machismo. He may be after a variety of things, but proving to his buddies that he can take and dish a punch is simply not on the menu.

In other words, the experience of a bouncer in diffusion and distraction is completely different from, well, that of anyone else. Social interaction is ridiculously complex, to the point where hard science still doesn't even make the attempt. Anyone saying that negating social violence is "natural" or "easy" simply does _not_ understand social violence outside of their own sphere.

And that's not even broaching the more unpleasant forms of violence out there.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Aside from spelling, I have to agree. This is entirely my own experience, and since nearly two years ago, when I moved 30 miles from a sh***y neighborhood to a poor but pleasant neighborhood of a very nice town, I think I can honesty say I haven't been in a single situation where I though a "fight" was brewing. But yeah, for me, as a young, perhaps slightly disreputable looking but mostly very friendly male, I agree.
> 
> My wife, as a small, pretty, very passive looking woman has had a very different experience with how one avoids violence.
> 
> ...



Which brings me back to this idea that there seem to be a lot of people who are apparently expert enough to teach deescalation. And tout their system as some sort of solution to violence. 

And I am not sure where they are getting their information from.

I think that is why we have color charts. Because for the most part the field testing is not put in to create a viable training system and we are left with what should be bloody obvious.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 23, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Anyone saying that negating social violence is "natural" or "easy" simply does _not_ understand social violence outside of their own sphere.


You can't negate violence, any more than you can stop someone breaking into your house, all you can do is make it more difficult for them so they move on and chose an easier target.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ...Because for the most part the field testing is not put in to create a viable training system and we are left with what should be bloody obvious.



Again, I largely agree. I have serious, conflicted thoughts about people teaching "Self Defense." Teaching someone to fight, which is undeniably helpful, sure, but Self Defense? I've seen quite a few attempts, and it usually seems to be lackluster at best. Are there people who can do it? Yeah, but I think they're more likely to be crime analysts and social workers than martial artists and sports competitors, in most cases. Note, in _most_ cases.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Again, I largely agree. I have serious, conflicted thoughts about people teaching "Self Defense." Teaching someone to fight, which is undeniably helpful, sure, but Self Defense? I've seen quite a few attempts, and it usually seems to be lackluster at best. Are there people who can do it? Yeah, but I think they're more likely to be crime analysts and social workers than martial artists and sports competitors, in most cases. Note, in _most_ cases.



There are resources I use. Very few are the industry training for your exact reason.

Places like lonely planet that will teach you the current scams.
Buyer beware: 10 common travel scams - Lonely Planet


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2015)

All of the above is nonsense.  Isshin-Ryu is what you want.  No kicks above the waist.  No fancy-schmancy moves that a) old guys don't do well and b) are liable to get you killed anyway.  I started training at age 46, I'm going to be 55 soon.  Isshin-Ryu is great for guys like me.  Big, strong, overweight, and hit a ton.  It's also great for little guys like our founder; speed, stability, and technique can overrule size, strength, and power.  It's not hard to learn, but it's a lifetime to master, which keeps your interest.

Just ignore the rest and do Isshin-Ryu.  You'll thank me later.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So how are you getting the deescalation skills? You cannot test deescalation with role play because the person you are testing it on is not emotionally involved. So from scenarios you can't have a good well designed training methodology. You have to field test it.



Then you don't understand how to do scenario training… or have never done it properly. You're not alone there, of course… some view it as a form of "acting", and get all self-conscious about it… so never actually approach it the way it should be done. But yes, emotional involvement (a realistic portrayal of such, at least) is a vital aspect of scenario training. Once again, the lack in your experience is not the truth of the matter in any way, shape, or form.



drop bear said:


> Your opinion in this is wrong.



My opinion is based purely on the gigantic lack shown in each and every post you have made on the topic… both before and after these posts.



drop bear said:


> OK. Sorry I will explain this more simply. This is street fighting and its link to bullying and even a bit of deescalation for you.



Son, you're not really in a position to educate me on this… the point I was making was that you were drawing superficial similarities, with little underlying in common, in relation to a tangental topic, unrelated to the actual conversation. It's things like this that indicate that you really don't have the understanding of these topics that you think you do, as you seem unable to follow conversation when it travels outside of your perspective.



drop bear said:


> Bullying occurs in part because people are allowed to. The victim is chosen as someone who can't or won't fight back. In the same street fight victims in part are chosen as someone who can't or won't fight back.



I really don't think you get what bullying really is… but besides that, the choice of victim is actually fairly different, as the aims are different… and it gets even further apart when you start looking at the difference between social violence (which can in some cases incorporate aspects, or versions of bullying, but also encompasses a lot more), asocial violence, resource predators, match fights, and so on.



drop bear said:


> This common element of violence is either intentionally or unintentionally predatory.



Isn't that like saying that aggressors behaviour is commonly aggressive? And still completely misses the defining characteristics and separations between the forms?



drop bear said:


> This comes to an old bouncer saying "your deescalation skills improve comparative to the size of your opponent"



Okay, I'm going to get you to rephrase that one to make it clear what you feel is meant by that "old saying"… it can go in a couple of different directions, depending on interpretation… 



drop bear said:


> This is one aspect of violence that seems to be ignored in some desperate attempt to separate street fighting from other crimes of violence.



Huh? What aspect is being ignored? That it's "predatory"? That de-escalation is affected by the size of the opponent? You're not making the contextual links clearly enough to follow your posts at times…

Oh, and for the record, yes, "street fighting" (whatever that is) is different and separate from other crimes of violence. If you don't get that, I take you back to my comments that you really, really don't get this topic to anywhere near the depth you believe you do.



drop bear said:


> So your opinion that a bog standard street fight has nothing to do with bullying is wrong. There can be a similar motivation.



There "can" be?!? Dude… 

I'll be clear. Bullying is a specific behaviour which is different to, in almost all aspects, from a "bog standard street fight" (again, whatever the hell that is). There is not a "similar motivation", and you have not demonstrated such at all.



drop bear said:


> *It may, and it may not. But the point is that it is not the same format as bullying… I really don't think you have much of an idea what that actually is, though.*
> 
> OK. See here is where you just loose the plot. You set up the standards for what is bullying. And then just change those standards when they are met. It is your format for bullying not mine.



No, son, what I said was that you really don't seem to grasp what bullying is… so my disagreeing with your personally attributed descriptive (which is largely inconclusive, irrelevant, and unrelated, not to mention non-specific to bullying or other behaviours) is not my "losing (one 'o', mate) the plot"… it's me restating, again, that you're not showing any clue what you're talking about.



drop bear said:


> If there looks like drama. Leave.



Okay, thanks for at least trying to answer the questions… that said:

This is both not not practical in certain situations, and not actually addressing the issues I was asking about (a contrast between dealing with social and asocial violence). While being aware of impending danger/drama, and recognising a time to leave is good and fine, we're a bit beyond that at this point. I will ask one more time, and request that you actually separate each question out again to answer each specifically, but can you actually go back and answer them? It's okay if you can't… but if that's the case, I highly recommend you stop telling people that that can't do something (teach de-escalation, self defence concepts, scenario training etc) just because you don't have any real grasp on the topics.



drop bear said:


> Don't be a duchebag.
> 
> This works most of the time. Otherwise it gets complicated.



You need to get a lot more specific than that with me. Of course, you're essentially paraphrasing Marc MacYoung here… who teaches all the stuff you say people can't… which I find amusing… 



drop bear said:


> By the way. Passive and aggressive escalation and deescalation you do at the same time. So it is not a when. It is how much of each you are applying



Er… what on earth are you going on about here?!? No, you cannot both passively and aggressively de-escalate at the same moment… you also cannot de-escalate and escalate at the same time… it's like trying to floor the accelerator while having the car in park and the handbrake on… too many opposing directions. What you can (and should) do is to be able to switch between them as the situation dictates.

As far as that video, I have no idea what you're trying to say with it, as there are numerous mistakes made throughout it, with little other than some luck and confidence getting the bouncer through… but there is no usage of passive and aggressive de-escalation and escalation at the same time at all… overtly, what he's doing is "big-dogging" the patron… which is a basic aggressive de-escalation tactic. I'm not a big fan of how he did it, but it worked for him here (as said, with a bit of luck, as well as the usage of his own name to back up his credibility). But it really didn't have anything to do with what you were saying.



drop bear said:


> Which brings me back to this idea that there seem to be a lot of people who are apparently expert enough to teach deescalation. And tout their system as some sort of solution to violence.



Yes, we are. And we don't tout such things as solutions to violence, but as a way of handling such situations… 



drop bear said:


> And I am not sure where they are getting their information from.



No, you can't get the idea that other people have a wider range of experience than you. Seriously, get over it. You've been told many times, and simply keep your fingers in your ears… your lack is not indicative of anyone else's.



drop bear said:


> I think that is why we have color charts. Because for the most part the field testing is not put in to create a viable training system and we are left with what should be bloody obvious.



What?!? No, that is not anything like why there are things like Coopers Colour Charts in use… JKS already went through it for you. 

Seriously, dude, your lack of knowledge is no-one's issue but your own.



drop bear said:


> There are resources I use. Very few are the industry training for your exact reason.
> 
> Places like lonely planet that will teach you the current scams.
> Buyer beware: 10 common travel scams - Lonely Planet



Then get better information and a wider range of sources. This is such incredibly low-level information that, if this is the level of your education in these topics, it's no wonder you're being left so far behind in these conversations.



Bill Mattocks said:


> All of the above is nonsense.  Isshin-Ryu is what you want.  No kicks above the waist.  No fancy-schmancy moves that a) old guys don't do well and b) are liable to get you killed anyway.  I started training at age 46, I'm going to be 55 soon.  Isshin-Ryu is great for guys like me.  Big, strong, overweight, and hit a ton.  It's also great for little guys like our founder; speed, stability, and technique can overrule size, strength, and power.  It's not hard to learn, but it's a lifetime to master, which keeps your interest.
> 
> Just ignore the rest and do Isshin-Ryu.  You'll thank me later.



Hey Bill… Honestly, I'm trying to figure out if you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here… I get that you're a big fan of your system, but you're also educated enough to know that no, it's far from the only answer. It might be the best for you, but that's about as far as you can definitely state. So, if you're being tongue-in-cheek, all cool. If not… then I'd have quite a bit to argue…


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2015)

Oh brother.  The condescension is so thick, it's hard to see the words on the screen.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Son, you're not really in a position to educate me on this… the point I was making was that you were drawing superficial similarities, with little underlying in common, in relation to a tangental topic, unrelated to the actual conversation. It's things like this that indicate that you really don't have the understanding of these topics that you think you do, as you seem unable to follow conversation when it travels outside of your perspective.



OK so you are the deescalation and awareness guy? What is your resume? Where have you gained these skills?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Steve said:


> Oh brother.  The condescension is so thick, it's hard to see the words on the screen.



I showed some posts to a sceptics group i am with.  They suggested it is the dunning kruger effect.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 20, 2015)

Steve said:


> Oh brother.  The condescension is so thick, it's hard to see the words on the screen.



Then I suggest you look past your personal issues and try to read what's actually said, Steve.



drop bear said:


> OK so you are the deescalation and awareness guy? What is your resume? Where have you gained these skills?



Not really the point, you understand… I mean… if my questions are beyond your ability to answer, that might be an indication of who's at what level here… but, to humour you, my resume is the last 22 years in an organisation that specifically gears it's methodology towards such ideas, combined with practical (real world) experience, on a variety of levels, and continued exposure to better and better information from subject matter experts… some of whom I am happy to have as friends, others as well-respected and known persons in the field.



drop bear said:


> I showed some posts to a sceptics group i am with.  They suggested it is the dunning kruger effect.



And do you want to know what people I've shown your posts to say…? 

Here's the thing. Your sceptics group are not subject matter experts here, and are likely going to go on your self-described credibility and status. That's normal (although the irony of a sceptic group doing so is quite amusing to me)… but it means that they aren't likely to be in a position to be able to ascertain who might be suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect… of course, knowing what it is, and knowing that you haven't been able to address any of my questions at all, coupled with your inability to see any point of view that doesn't match your limited understanding, the arrow is not pointing in my direction.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Bill… Honestly, I'm trying to figure out if you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here… I get that you're a big fan of your system, but you're also educated enough to know that no, it's far from the only answer. It might be the best for you, but that's about as far as you can definitely state. So, if you're being tongue-in-cheek, all cool. If not… then I'd have quite a bit to argue…



Yeah, just taking the piss.

I think I threw that in because some of the responses were like OMG.  It was all far too silly, so I just went with it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Then I suggest you look past your personal issues and try to read what's actually said, Steve..


Thanks for your suggestion, son, but you're not really in a position to educate me on this.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2015)

So when does this degrade into "Who's is bigger"...oh wait...it just did....


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 20, 2015)

Poor OP. All they wanted was a few suggestions of martial arts styles that are frequently geared at self-defense style combat, and which also are less demanding on the body. Hopefully they got some useful info out of the first page...


----------



## Flatfish (Nov 20, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Poor OP. All they wanted was a few suggestions of martial arts styles that are frequently geared at self-defense style combat, and which also are less demanding on the body. Hopefully they got some useful info out of the first page...




I think the OP learned A LOT


----------



## Buka (Nov 20, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Poor OP. All they wanted was a few suggestions of martial arts styles that are frequently geared at self-defense style combat, and which also are less demanding on the body. Hopefully they got some useful info out of the first page...



LOL, you're right, bro. Poor Nicerdicer (The OP) probably thinks we're all nuts.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 20, 2015)

Buka said:


> LOL, you're right, bro. Poor Nicerdicer (The OP) probably thinks we're all nuts.



Well, it's to be expected, mixing people who enjoy being smacked around and the internet...


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Not really the point, you understand… I mean… if my questions are beyond your ability to answer, that might be an indication of who's at what level here… but, to humour you, my resume is the last 22 years in an organisation that specifically gears it's methodology towards such ideas, combined with practical (real world) experience, on a variety of levels, and continued exposure to better and better information from subject matter experts… some of whom I am happy to have as friends, others as well-respected and known persons in the field.




So you do what. domestic violence? Hostage negotiation? Some sort of degree in psychology? I don't know.

You can't seriously suggest you expertise has come directly from being a ninja. That would be ludicrous.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> So when does this degrade into "Who's is bigger"...oh wait...it just did....



Trolling again?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Here's the thing. Your sceptics group are not subject matter experts here, and are likely going to go on your self-described credibility and status. That's normal (although the irony of a sceptic group doing so is quite amusing to me)… but it means that they aren't likely to be in a position to be able to ascertain who might be suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect… of course, knowing what it is, and knowing that you haven't been able to address any of my questions at all, coupled with your inability to see any point of view that doesn't match your limited understanding, the arrow is not pointing in my direction.



They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand. I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.

It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.

It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)


----------



## donald1 (Nov 20, 2015)

IMO, picking a dojo is like picking a mattress. Dont just look at it, try it out (is it what you wanted? Is the price range good? ) 

Go visit a school or schools or maybe talk with the instructor or whoever is in charge (remember: be respective!)


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand. I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.
> 
> It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.
> 
> It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)



Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it.  Can't say which...  In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level...  Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it.  Can't say which...  In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level...  Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...



Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Trolling again?



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And nope, just reading threads and speaking the truth... got a problem with the truth there do ya.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> all sorts of stuff I don't understand.



most truthful thing you said since you got here


----------



## Blindside (Nov 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.



There are some posts I made as a newbie kenpo purple belt on the internet in oh about 97-99 that I really wish I could get back.  Did I think I was a black belt?  No, did I think I knew more than I did?  Oh yes.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2015)

I'm actually gonna agree with Chris on one point. Many people don't know how to properly use scenario training.

Too many people think it's just two people "acting". In reality, a role player has specific guidelines that reinforce the lesson being taught to the student.

One mundane police example. 

We train officers to NOT go into rooms during building searches when they see the bad guy inside...we want them to call the BG out to an area of LE control.

So. During scenario/role play the " bright line " for the role player is to surrender if the officer does what we want him/her to do... i.e. if they get called out, then the BG surrenders.

If the officer forgets the lesson he/she may get "shot" with simunition. 

Even then, we tell the officer to keep fighting and (assuming the BG gets hit) let the officer "survive" even though hit.

There may be a list of IF/THEN rules for the role player within a scenario depending on what skills/tactics you are trying to reinforce within the role play. You better search that BG after cuffing him or you may still get shot. You better then clear the room the BG came out of or the second BG in there may shoot you. Etc. Etc. Etc. 

What scenario training is NOT, is paintball with no stated training objectives or a "no win" scenario where the instructor gets to prove how much better he is than the student. 




Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Either your source was wrong, or you misunderstood it.  Can't say which...  In brief, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a label for the tendency of people with little or no knowledge or skill to assess themselves at an artificially and incorrectly high level...  Like, say, someone who's trained for a few weeks to think they're equal to the black belts...



Yup. It's actually a two-part effect.

Not only do those who know little on a subject often believe they know more than they do, due to their lack of understanding of the breadth of the subject, but those who are very knowledgeable tend to underestimate their own knowledge, based largely on their understanding of just how huge a field of study it is.

In other words, the foolish think they know everything, the wise think they know very little.

It's a good study to have some familiarity with, since it seems to be the one study (outside the Kinsey Report) that _everyone_ over the age of 13 likes to bring up  constantly.

Since this thread is beyond recovery anyway...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 21, 2015)

Tgace said:


> I'm actually gonna agree with Chris on one point. Many people don't know how to properly use scenario training.
> 
> Too many people think it's just two people "acting". In reality, a role player has specific guidelines that reinforce the lesson being taught to the student.
> 
> ...




Very well put Tgace!


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, just taking the piss.
> 
> I think I threw that in because some of the responses were like OMG.  It was all far too silly, so I just went with it.



Ha, cool.



Steve said:


> Thanks for your suggestion, son, but you're not really in a position to educate me on this.



Actually Steve, yeah, I am… the question is whether or not your in a position to learn.



drop bear said:


> So you do what. domestic violence? Hostage negotiation? Some sort of degree in psychology? I don't know.
> 
> You can't seriously suggest you expertise has come directly from being a ninja. That would be ludicrous.



You got your answer. I might also point out that you are now completely changing your question… you asked about my education on awareness and de-escalation… now you're bringing in hostage negotiation? Domestic violence? Really?

Once more, for the record, yes, my education has dealt with such subjects, in particular contexts, but this is not what you were asking… and you are still to be able to even address my questions.



drop bear said:


> They are all degreed up in all sorts of stuff I don't understand.



Irrelevant, I was saying they aren't educated in this particular area (martial arts, self defence etc).



drop bear said:


> I had to look up dunning Kruger when they mentioned it.



I didn't.



drop bear said:


> It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.



For gods sake, that is a point you have simply never gotten, no matter how simply or patiently it was explained to you. When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source. 

One last time, your lack of education and understanding is no-one else's issue.



drop bear said:


> It was mentioned. You could put your self in your own bibliography. (Also had to look up)



What was mentioned? By who? Where? Dude, you really have some major contextual issues in your posts… I have no idea what you're referring to here.



drop bear said:


> Yeah i dont know how someone would come to that conclusion.



You may want to look back at the Dunning Kruger effect, then… and perhaps apply some self reflection.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> You got your answer. I might also point out that you are now completely changing your question… you asked about my education on awareness and de-escalation… now you're bringing in hostage negotiation? Domestic violence? Really?
> 
> Once more, for the record, yes, my education has dealt with such subjects, in particular contexts, but this is not what you were asking… and you are still to be able to even address my questions.



Your answer is kind of terrible though. The vague references which i assume is designed to reflect what a high speed guy would say.  Comes across more like you are being a walter mitty. 

So what i am trying to find out is in what context specifically?

I mean that is why i say security guy.  So that the context is clear. I am not trying to pretend i am something i am not


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> You may want to look back at the Dunning Kruger effect, then… and perhaps apply some self reflection.



No you are? 

Mate work on your banter.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> For gods sake, that is a point you have simply never gotten, no matter how simply or patiently it was explained to you. When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source.
> 
> One last time, your lack of education and understanding is no-one else's issue.



Ok.  So it is just your opinion you are expressing here? 

I thought there was a suggestion that it was fact.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Your answer is kind of terrible though. The vague references which i assume is designed to reflect what a high speed guy would say.  Comes across more like you are being a walter mitty.
> 
> So what i am trying to find out is in what context specifically?
> 
> I mean that is why i say security guy.  So that the context is clear. I am not trying to pretend i am something i am not



Then re-read it.



drop bear said:


> No you are?
> 
> Mate work on your banter.



Son, you're the one who suggested such a thing… the point is that if you're being shown as so woefully undereducated in this area, but are feeling that you can argue the point (badly), then really, you're the one suffering from a Dunning Kruger effect. Plain and simple.



drop bear said:


> Ok.  So it is just your opinion you are expressing here?
> 
> I thought there was a suggestion that it was fact.



You really don't have any clue, do you?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2015)

"Arrogance is a creature. It does not have senses. It has only a sharp tongue and the pointing finger."

-Toba Beta

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Then re-read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I still don't have a clue as to what context your expertise in these soft skills have come from.  I would have thought it was a pretty simple question.

If you are satisfied with. How did it go?.

22 years in an organisation that specifically gears it's methodology towards such ideas, combined withpractical (real world) experience, on a variety of levels, and continued exposure to better and better information from subject matter experts…

I am going to suggest it translates to never been in a fight,never had to talk your way out of one,probably read Geoff Thompson's book. And is trying to pad your experience to make it seem more practical than it really is.

Which would not be a problem if you owned up to that. Plenty of people have said exactly that. And that they need to seek this information where they get it. I have even said I know one aspect and seek information where I can get it.

The only one trying to be a super spy here is you. And not to belabour the dunning Kruger thing. It was probably on the money.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

Son, you really should pay more attention… yes, I've been in fights, I've avoided them, I've employed what I teach, so have my students, so have other members of our organisation, and what we teach is supported by and backed up by the rest of the industry and community.

Your lack of understanding of what you've read is really getting in the way of your posts, you know. You still don't get the Dunning Kruger effect either… even when it was explained to you by JKS… pity, really.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is mostly the assertions that you are right according to your source which is of course you. That nobody who has ever written a peer reviewed paper ever does.





Chris Parker said:


> When being asked something from your own experience, yes, you are your own source. In a peer reviewed paper, when explaining your own views and opinions, you are also your own source.



I think you guys are using "being your own source" in two very different ways here.

If I were to be putting out a peer-reviewed paper (in the sciences at least, I'm not so familiar with how it works in the humanities), I would be laying out a framework of what is known on the topic, with references to specific prior publications that the reader could check to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting things. I would then explain the hypothesis I intended to test, the exact methodology I employed to perform that test, the results of the test, my interpretation of the results, and any qualifications or limitations on my confidence in that interpretation of the results. If someone wanted to replicate my experiments to see if they got the same results, they should have most or all of the necessary information to do so in the paper.

What I would _not_ do is say "I've been studying topic xyz for 20 years. I have a Ph.D. in the topic and have been a professor for 10 years. This is the way it is because I said so."

In casual conversation on the topic, it's fine for the Ph.D. to play the authority card and assert that he has more knowledge on the subject than someone who doesn't have that depth of experience. However he should also be able to explain in excruciating detail the studies that led to the current state of knowledge in the field as well as the limitations of that knowledge. 

Chris, from reading what you've written here over the years I suspect that your self-defense curriculum has some good stuff. I would have a much higher confidence in that suspicion if you were to explain exactly what that curriculum covers, how it was developed and how it has been tested and improved over the years based on the results of those tests.

For those who are more skeptical, they probably need to see that information before they have any confidence in it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2015)

To take it back to where that poorly misunderstood reality was first introduced to our young Drop Bear, it really wasn't anything like this… however he's tried to attribute it to every comment made.

The original comment was in a conversation about "samurai martial training methods"… where the question was (rather facetiously) whether or not samurai killed each other every time they trained together to ensure they could (and would) actually kill the enemy as well. The answer was no, they didn't, and that we know this as we have the same training manuals and records as part of our current training information and methods. We were then asked where our information came from, and the answer was from actually being part of the systems in question, and from training it currently. In other words, we were being asked for the source of information that came from actually training in these systems, to which we (well, I) said that our source for what we do in our training is ourselves, as we know what we do in our training sessions. 

This has been pointed out repeatedly, and Drop Bear has continued to miss the actual meaning of the comment. When it comes to a peer reviewed paper, external sources, external data, experiments (thought and physical), and so on all require sources, sure… but saying "based on all of this, my view is…" does not require any source other than the person making the observation itself.

When it comes to my self defence curriculum, bluntly, it's our intellectual property that I don't have a lot of intention to put up publicly, however if someone is genuinely curious, I might be persuaded to offer some details… depending on the person, of course, and the manner of the request.

Of course, excruciating detail is something I can offer on request… but my posts are often long enough as is, yeah?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> The original comment was in a conversation about "samurai martial training methods"… where the question was (rather facetiously) whether or not samurai killed each other every time they trained together to ensure they could (and would) actually kill the enemy as well. The answer was no, they didn't, and that we know this as we have the same training manuals and records as part of our current training information and methods. We were then asked where our information came from, and the answer was from actually being part of the systems in question, and from training it currently. In other words, we were being asked for the source of information that came from actually training in these systems, to which we (well, I) said that our source for what we do in our training is ourselves, as we know what we do in our training sessions.



I very highly doubt you are living the life of a samurai of that time period. So it is not in anyway shape or form a first person experience.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> This has been pointed out repeatedly, and Drop Bear has continued to miss the actual meaning of the comment. When it comes to a peer reviewed paper, external sources, external data, experiments (thought and physical), and so on all require sources, sure… but saying "based on all of this, my view is…" does not require any source other than the person making the observation itself.



Yeah I don't think you ever started a post with "my view is"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 28, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> The original comment was in a conversation about "samurai martial training methods"… where the question was (rather facetiously) whether or not samurai killed each other every time they trained together to ensure they could (and would) actually kill the enemy as well. The answer was no, they didn't, and that we know this as we have the same training manuals and records as part of our current training information and methods. We were then asked where our information came from, and the answer was from actually being part of the systems in question, and from training it currently.



Yeah, I remember that conversation. Not the finest moment for drop bear's skepticism, since he never really clarified what sort of "evidence" he was looking for.

Was he looking for ...

evidence that you train in a koryu art?
evidence that said art actually dates back to the samurai period?
evidence that the art has accurately maintained training traditions and written records from that period?
links to scans of the original written records?
video taken by a time traveler of actual samurai training?

Without knowing what he was looking for, it really wasn't possible to address his calls for "evidence."



Chris Parker said:


> In other words, we were being asked for the source of information that came from actually training in these systems, to which we (well, I) said that our source for what we do in our training is ourselves, as we know what we do in our training sessions.



In fairness, the discussion wasn't about what _you_ do in your training sessions and whether you were a valid source for that information, it was about what the _samurai_ did and whether you were a valid source for that. The major bone of contention was whether your current training matched theirs.

Of course, as noted above, he gave no clarification as to what sort of evidence he would accept to establish that correspondence.



Chris Parker said:


> When it comes to my self defence curriculum, bluntly, it's our intellectual property that I don't have a lot of intention to put up publicly, however if someone is genuinely curious, I might be persuaded to offer some details… depending on the person, of course, and the manner of the request.



Not asking for the actual curriculum, but would you be willing to explain

The scope of the curriculum?
the sources and methodology for establishing that curriculum?
how that curriculum has been tested/validated/improved upon?
If you don't want to address those publicly, I might check with you via PM.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2015)

Duplicate, deleted.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I very highly doubt you are living the life of a samurai of that time period. So it is not in anyway shape or form a first person experience.



I train in Koryu, son. That is the actual "samurai training methods". So yeah, it is absolutely first person experience… your ignorance in this topic doesn't change the reality.



drop bear said:


> Yeah I don't think you ever started a post with "my view is"



Again, completely missing the point.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, I remember that conversation. Not the finest moment for drop bear's skepticism, since he never really clarified what sort of "evidence" he was looking for.



It was worse than that, honestly… it started with a tongue in cheek comment asking if he (and Hanzou, from memory) really believed that everything had to be done "for real" in training in order to ensure it would be done "for real" when it came to application (an argument they were using for sparring/competition as opposed to drilling or kata), with the example of "do you really think the samurai were killing each other in practice so they could kill people in battle?"… a question so ludicrous (a usage of a reducto ad absurdum argument) that it was designed to highlight the flaws in their argument… but was taken seriously, to the point that we (Elder and myself) were asked how we knew they didn't (?!?!).

From there, both Elder and myself brought up the fact that we either have trained in, or are currently training in the very systems and training methodologies of the samurai of old, with our systems having documentation of training practices, showing that the methods of training now are as they were then, and that as such, we can say that no, samurai did not go out and kill each other at each training session. Drop Bear and Hanzou continued to ask whether we had any evidence… ignoring the fact that our actual experience in these systems is the source for our claims of how they are trained… saying that we were providing no evidence, because they were unable to acknowledge or recognise the differing forms evidence can take. This was explained ad nauseum, however Drop Bear has since taken the idea of "be your own source (when describing your own experiences)" and completely misapplied, misunderstood it, and showed a deep, desperate ignorance of the most basic concepts of the nature of evidence in any form. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Was he looking for ...
> 
> evidence that you train in a koryu art?
> evidence that said art actually dates back to the samurai period?
> ...





Whatever he was after, no matter what he was given, his immediate retort was "So… no evidence then?"



Tony Dismukes said:


> Without knowing what he was looking for, it really wasn't possible to address his calls for "evidence."



Oh, they were addressed… his intellectual poverty didn't mean it wasn't addressed… just that the recipient either wasn't able to recognise it, or he was deliberately trolling. I'm still on the fence as to that.



Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, the discussion wasn't about what _you_ do in your training sessions and whether you were a valid source for that information, it was about what the _samurai_ did and whether you were a valid source for that. The major bone of contention was whether your current training matched theirs.



No, it started there, but quickly turned to "how do you know what a samurai martial arts training methods were like?", which lead to "Well, we train in them… they still exist, and we use the same methods now that they did then." That's when we got to the idea of "be your own source" that has continued to here.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Of course, as noted above, he gave no clarification as to what sort of evidence he would accept to establish that correspondence.



And that, frankly, is his own lack.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Not asking for the actual curriculum, but would you be willing to explain
> 
> The scope of the curriculum?
> the sources and methodology for establishing that curriculum?
> ...



That I'll answer via PM, just send the questions through and I'll break it down as best I can.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I train in Koryu, son. That is the actual "samurai training methods". So yeah, it is absolutely first person experience… your ignorance in this topic doesn't change the reality.



I train bjj. Now let me tell you what it was like growing up in a favella.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2016)

You do get that no-one, in either this or any other thread, has made any claim to "living as a samurai", but about understanding what training in samurai-derived systems is like… but, for the record, I'd expect you'd have a better understanding of what growing up in a favella is like than someone training TKD…


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> You do get that no-one, in either this or any other thread, has made any claim to "living as a samurai", but about understanding what training in samurai-derived systems is like… but, for the record, I'd expect you'd have a better understanding of what growing up in a favella is like than someone training TKD…



No. I asked about living as a samurai. And whether or not they dueled anybody. And you said first hand experience.

Which it why I was supposed to just take your word for it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2016)

No, the discussion was about samurai training practices. When you were answered, you responded "I doubt you're really living like a samurai", at which point you were told that that was not what was being claimed. You were told that again. And again.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I asked about living as a samurai. And whether or not they dueled anybody.


Speaking as a neutral third party who generally appreciates both Chris's posts and your own - nope. That was not what was said. The specific question was whether samurai killed each other _in practice as part of their training_. No one ever denied that duels occurred between samurai.

Also, neither Chris nor anyone else claimed to "be a samurai" or to be "living as a samurai." In fact, Chris has made numerous statements which would contradict that claim. What Chris claims is to be training in an art which has preserved the techniques and training methods of (a certain school of) samurai origin. That's completely different from "being a samurai" or "living as a samurai."



Chris Parker said:


> but, for the record, I'd expect you'd have a better understanding of what growing up in a favella is like than someone training TKD…



Actually, nah. That sort of cultural context has not been preserved in BJJ. Even if it had been, you'd have to find a school from the Fadda lineage, because the Gracies focused on teaching the folks with money.


----------



## Drew Ahn-Kim (Jan 3, 2016)

First off, Tony Dismukes for Chief Justice 2016!

Secondly, I'd actually like to learn a bit about your system and methodology Chris, if you've posted it else where would you mind linking.  I lived in Japan for 3 years and had a long obsession with Samurai history and Bushido.  This whole post kind of took a left turn though.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 4, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Actually, nah. That sort of cultural context has not been preserved in BJJ. Even if it had been, you'd have to find a school from the Fadda lineage, because the Gracies focused on teaching the folks with money.



Agreed… however, he's still going to have a better idea than others… who likely wouldn't even know what a favella is… 



Drew Ahn-Kim said:


> First off, Tony Dismukes for Chief Justice 2016!
> 
> Secondly, I'd actually like to learn a bit about your system and methodology Chris, if you've posted it else where would you mind linking.  I lived in Japan for 3 years and had a long obsession with Samurai history and Bushido.  This whole post kind of took a left turn though.



Send a PM and I'll aim to answer what I can.


----------



## Spinoza (Jan 5, 2016)

I’m a complete novice, but I’ve been thinking about the same question recently (perhaps because of a hip injury made me feel old?) and I thought I’d throw in my two cents.

I am, however, going to break up the question into self-defense in old age and martial arts in old age. I’m not going to vouch for any particular style being “good” or “bad” for self-defense, and I’m not sure if an internet forum is the right place to find the answer for that question. Go visit some schools and see for yourself. The right teacher is probably more important than the right style when it comes to that. While you are at it, ask the teacher how he handles students that have an injury. Are they allowed to practice and, if so, how is that handled?

The downside to this is that there are no guarantees. You may end up being strong and flexible well into your 70s, you may end up paralyzed tomorrow. You may find a great school that could continue teaching you as you age . . . but the teacher is going to age too. Who knows if the next teacher will be as supportive, or if the school is even going to be around in 5 years?

That said . . .
*

Self-defense*

Get pepper spray and learn how to use it. Personally, I haven’t seen a more effective nonlethal way of ending a fight, and there is no age requirement. Get a dog and train it. Even a small yappy dog is great for home protection. My friendly-as-can-be lab/border collie mix is responsible for stopping at least one home burglary and one incident of vandalism; in both cases, ours was the only home on the block that wasn’t hit and that was because we had dogs in the yard.

Learn more about avoiding and extricating yourself from threatening situations. I’m not saying you need any formal training, but common sense can be surprisingly hard to come by in an emergency situation, so at least go around, pick up some tips and think through some emergency scenario. I’m talking everything from the simple (after you pepper spray someone, _leave_ — surprising number of people stick around waiting for the cops to show up) to the bizarre (a woman at my college stopped a mugging . . . by repeatedly barking at the guy and generally acting bonkers).

Find out what weapons are legal for carry in your area. If there are any that you are comfortable using in self-defense, seek training. And don’t take anything for granted. In my state, you can legally carry a knife or even a handgun (with proper licensing), but “clubs” (which are not well-defined, legally speaking) are illegal to carry in public. And yes, if you practice using a cane in self-defense, and you use it for that purpose, you may find later that it is classified as a “club."

Finally, keep practicing your throwing arm. If someone threatens you and demands, say, your car keys or your wallet, throw them as far away as you can, and leave.

I’ll post my thoughts on martial arts here in just a second.


----------



## Spinoza (Jan 5, 2016)

*Martial arts in old age*

Again, I’m not telling you whether or not I think any of these are useful for self-defense. That depends on how they are taught, which depends on the instructor. The question isn’t “Is Y style good for self-defense?” but “Does X teach realistic self-defense applications for Y style?” I know that Tai-Chi has been used for self-defense in the past, but I don’t know of any schools in my area that teach Tai-Chi as self-defense. Your mileage may vary.

Wing Chun is probably my go-to answer. There is no stress on high kicks and you probably aren’t going to be dealing with high-impact sparring. As a funny side note, remember how I mentioned my injured hip in my last post? I went for a short intro class in Wing Chun and learned a stance that was extremely uncomfortable at first. I asked the instructor about it and he said that the stance was primarily for conditioning leg strength, and that it isn’t common to fight from the stance itself. A few minutes into it, my hip felt great.

Surprisingly, most articles that I’ve read on this subject suggest BJJ, but it makes sense the more I think about it. The sparring can get intense, but you can scale that back with age, and I don’t think you’ll have to worry about many high kicks J

*On the other hand . . .*

I don’t think there is a good universal answer to your question that will work for everyone. I’ve spoken to many aging Judokas that blame Judo for the bulk of their physical ailments — specifically they blame the joint stress for their arthritis, and being constantly thrown to the mat with the force of a low speed vehicle impact probably doesn’t do any long-term favors for your body. As much as that makes sense, no one told this woman: http://jezebel.com/5833226/meet-the-98-year-old-female-judo-master

And you are worried about high kicks? That isn’t necessarily a problem in old age: Kicking From the Hip

And just as a general “age is just a number” pick-me-up: 




Yes, these people are all outliers, but hey, they prove it is possible.

All physical activity in your senior years is a double edged sword: it has obvious benefits, but there is a higher risk of injury. Any doctor will tell you that it is better to go ahead and stay physically active and adjust your routine to reduce risks when necessary.


----------



## Spinoza (Jan 5, 2016)

More inspiration: 




I hope I'm still moving around like that at 75.


----------



## nicerdicer (Jan 10, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> SD is Threat & Awareness Evaluation, Coopers Colour Codes, Target Hardening,  The Fence and familiarising yourself with the Rituals of Violence.  Once you have these skills, then in the majority of cases the only thing you need is a good strong punch.  As Geoff Thompson says, "I train for the first shot, it's all I need".
> 
> As for picking an art, I would just try everything that's available, and pick the one you enjoy the most, as if you enjoy it you are more likely to stick with it and therefore become good at it.



There have been some good comments. The quote abovr is what I agree most with.

And just for the record: I do worry about my training 50 yrs down the line. Why? I know a lot of people who didn't, now they're 40+ and they can't train anymore. 

And no way will I ever stop doing martial arts period. Nothing makes my life more joyful.


----------



## nicerdicer (Jan 10, 2016)

Spinoza said:


> *Martial arts in old age*
> 
> Again, I’m not telling you whether or not I think any of these are useful for self-defense. That depends on how they are taught, which depends on the instructor. The question isn’t “Is Y style good for self-defense?” but “Does X teach realistic self-defense applications for Y style?” I know that Tai-Chi has been used for self-defense in the past, but I don’t know of any schools in my area that teach Tai-Chi as self-defense. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> ...


Well both the people in the videos can't defend themselves (gives they weren't able to avoid the situation). I don't care how high they kick or whatever, I want to walk in peace and be a bad old mofo.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 11, 2016)

Steve said:


> Thanks for your suggestion, son, but you're not really in a position to educate me on this.


I see what you did here. "Son"  I'm proud of you Steve!


----------

