# The Gray Man...



## Draven (Nov 16, 2009)

I was discussing victimization theory the other day and someone said why not be the gray man. I hate the strawman/grayman arguements because I do not believe in the gray man concept. The Gray Man concept is to blend into one's surrounding and not invite trouble. 

Thats what gets me, many if not most people have no clue as to how not to invite trouble. Even sitting quietly in public can draw attention to you if you do it the wrong way. Crime works on a pryamid of Opportunity, Ability & Reward. If a person presents an opportunity to be robbed and the criminal has the ability to rob you and the reward is worth the risk. You will get robbed...

In fact sometimes the mear presence of Opportunity and Ability can spur the act without consideration for the Reward being worth the risk. Going back to a person sitting quietly in public; this not always a bad sign but its too easy to get a feeling of false security, can inspire an attack or robbery by presenting a "sign of weakness" which shows ability and/or appearing unaware of your surroundings which is Opportunity.

So thoughts on situation which appear to the gray man docturine but not be effective for deturing crime or violence?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

People decisions and lifestyles place them in trouble FAR more often than the "random crime" meme.

Random victimhood does happen, but FAR more people become victims due to their own decision making process.

The "gray man" approach has merit..if you understand the concept.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

GM is the basis of human camouflage, and it is applicable at all levels, from business to self-defense to culture-jamming and alien invasion.

However, application is different depending on context.

The long and short of it is that GM fits his presentation to his desired outcome.  Many reject it due to archaic concepts that were invented to keep people responding in a predictable way, such as notions of machismo.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...such as notions of machismo.




One of the biggest factors in the equation. Along with booze, dope and poor choice of friends and hobbies.

There is a reason why robbery squads dress up cops to act like drunks in public.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 16, 2009)

I never heard of the "gray man" concept, but when I ride the subways, especially when the cars are relatively empty, yes, I do try to blend in and become as invisible as possible, while still being vigilant.  I keep to myself, read a newspaper and watch out through my peripheral vision.  I don't look people in the eye, I don't stare.

Could I still be a victim, sure, but I think I'd be more of a victim if I stood out, appeared fearful, or stared at people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> I never heard of the "gray man" concept, but when I ride the subways, especially when the cars are relatively empty, yes, I do try to blend in and become as invisible as possible, while still being vigilant.  I keep to myself, read a newspaper and watch out through my peripheral vision.  I don't look people in the eye, I don't stare.
> 
> Could I still be a victim, sure, but I think I'd be more of a victim if I stood out, appeared fearful, or stared at people.



The GM fits appearances to situations based on desired outcome.  Your description is quite apt.

GM quite often appear to others to be something other than they are.


----------



## still learning (Nov 16, 2009)

Hello, For Divers..the man in the grey suit?  ...same situtions too..

...all we can do is awarenees and learn avoidness...

Aloha,   

When a person wants to do it?  ...they will


----------



## Zero (Nov 17, 2009)

As Archangel and Bill have said, the grey man is not just about sitting on a park bench all quiet etc, it is about adjusting oneself to the current environment to avoid the focus of potential assailents and the avoid conflict.

While sitting on a bench may at times be appropriate, at others it will be doing just that at a certain time that results in scum zeroing in on you - that is not the grey man concept failing but its application by the individual.

The main thing is to be able to shift with the environment and to eminate (or not) what vibe is appropriate to avoid being categorised as a victim by those specific persons that are around you; this needs to be coupled with enhanced awareness and the ability to determine when an environment needs to be exited or when different actions should be taken.


----------



## Draven (Nov 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> GM is the basis of human camouflage, and it is applicable at all levels, from business to self-defense to culture-jamming and alien invasion.


 
I find it to be less effective and reject it out right simply because I find it ineffective. Now I'm not saying be the macho tough guy who gets to be the target of other more macho tougher tough guys. Camouflage is not always an attempt at invisibility, everyone down to the "criminals" wear camouflage.

Allot of criminals dress a very specific way to project a very specific image, think of it like being the striped bee on the nature channel that everyone avoids because it looks like a bee.



Bill Mattocks said:


> However, application is different depending on context.
> 
> The long and short of it is that GM fits his presentation to his desired outcome. Many reject it due to archaic concepts that were invented to keep people responding in a predictable way, such as notions of machismo.


 
I have never heard the gray man concept discribed as anything but being passive blending in with one's environment. I reject it because it seems an ostrage method of self-defense, if I pretend not to see the wolves and burry my head in the sand they won't eat me...

To give you a comparitive example of what I find wrong about it...
Gray Man:              
1. Passively Aware of Presence of a Criminial
2. Passively Avoids Potentional Threat
3. Passively tries to isolate themselves and blend in
4. Waits to be Threatened

Hard Target:
1. Is Actively Aware of the Presence of a Criminal
2. Actively Avoids Potentional Threat
3. Actively tries to socially blend in and be see by others
4. Takes Pre-emptive Action prior to being threatened


----------



## frank raud (Nov 17, 2009)

Hmm, a high ranking ninja having problems with the idea of blending in with your surroundings?

How does one passively blend in? To blend in requires knowledge of your surroundings, how people dress and behave, posture and gait(sometimes).

I have always understood the gray man to be the wolf in sheeps clothings. The object being not to draw attention by being either too passive(a potential victim) nor too agressive( a potential threat or challenge). If something goes down, the description of the gray man is very generic, not"6 ft eskimo with multi-coloured mohawk wearing tuxedo tails with I AM RIGHT embroidered on the back".


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 17, 2009)

frank raud said:


> Hmm, a high ranking ninja having problems with the idea of blending in with your surroundings?
> 
> How does one passively blend in? To blend in requires knowledge of your surroundings, how people dress and behave, posture and gait(sometimes).
> 
> I have always understood the gray man to be the wolf in sheeps clothings. The object being not to draw attention by being either too passive(a potential victim) nor too agressive( a potential threat or challenge). If something goes down, the description of the gray man is very generic, not"6 ft eskimo with multi-coloured mohawk wearing tuxedo tails with I AM RIGHT embroidered on the back".



Exactly. "Gray" does not mean "Ostrich" that's one end of the spectrum with "Macho Tough guy" on the other end.


----------



## thardey (Nov 18, 2009)

It sounds like the same argument as to whether to carry a gun openly or concealed.

If you carry openly, you're opening yourself up to challenges, debates, mistrust, etc. But you're not likely to be a victim.

If you carry concealed, the BG may approach you, but by the time he finds out you're not a victim, it's too late, and you have the element of surprise.

Bottom line: tactically, unless you have a soldier's uniform on, or carry a badge openly, it's a bad idea to carry openly. Keep it hidden, and keep it accesible.


----------



## blindsage (Nov 18, 2009)

Draven said:


> I find it to be less effective and reject it out right simply because I find it ineffective. Now I'm not saying be the macho tough guy who gets to be the target of other more macho tougher tough guys. Camouflage is not always an attempt at invisibility, everyone down to the "criminals" wear camouflage.
> 
> Allot of criminals dress a very specific way to project a very specific image, think of it like being the striped bee on the nature channel that everyone avoids because it looks like a bee.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that you are misinterpreting the idea based on terminology. It sounds like you don't like the idea of the word 'passive' in any way, shape or form, but I think that's missing the point. If you look at your constructed comparison between the 'Gray Man' and the 'Hard Target', there is no actually difference in the first three ideas. 

1. How can you be 'passively' aware? You're either aware or you're not, there is no 'passive' vs. 'active' awareness. 

2. How can you 'passively' avoid potential threats? You either avoid them or you don't, there is no 'passive' vs.  'active' potential threat avoidance. 

3. How do you passive blend in, in relation to a potential threat? You're either doing it intentionally, or again you're unaware. There is no 'passive' vs. 'active' blending in.

4. This is the one, possible, difference. You compare waiting to be threatened vs. pre-emptive action, but these are not mutually exclusive ideas. Depending on the context, either one may be appropriate. Are you going to attack someone because they look like a thug and they walked near you? Probably not, but you likely want to keep an eye on them. Should you wait until someone is in your face to take action when they were already acting aggressive and threatening (or just shady as hell)? Definitely not, but you don't want to punch somebody in the face for just a heated argument either.

I think your interpretation of the concept is missing some elements and maybe needs to be reexamined, because your idea of the 'Hard Target' seems to meet everyone else's idea of the 'Gray Man'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

Draven said:


> I find it to be less effective and reject it out right simply because I find it ineffective. Now I'm not saying be the macho tough guy who gets to be the target of other more macho tougher tough guys. Camouflage is not always an attempt at invisibility, everyone down to the "criminals" wear camouflage.



The GM fits his behavior to the situation.  It can also mean projecting an air of _'not to be messed with'_ or _'dangerous if disturbed'_ when there is a good reason for it.

Camouflage in these situations does not mean meek or hidden.  It means not drawing undue attention.  Victims often stand out, while trying to blend in.  One must know when and how to project oneself to avoid being singled out.  That can mean being meek, or it can mean projecting strength.  It depends upon the situation.



> Allot of criminals dress a very specific way to project a very specific image, think of it like being the striped bee on the nature channel that everyone avoids because it looks like a bee.



I think you may be taking the term 'camouflage' a bit to literally.



> I have never heard the gray man concept discribed as anything but being passive blending in with one's environment.



It can be, but it does not have to be.  It means not being on the radar.  That can mean blending in or it can mean standing out - but not in the way that marks one as a victim.



> I reject it because it seems an ostrage method of self-defense, if I pretend not to see the wolves and burry my head in the sand they won't eat me...



The GM gets by because others refuse to believe in it.  The GM doesn't care what his method 'seems like', only how it works.



> To give you a comparitive example of what I find wrong about it...
> Gray Man:
> 1. Passively Aware of Presence of a Criminial
> 2. Passively Avoids Potentional Threat
> ...



The GM is a much larger concept than that.  Imagine someone who buys the 'right' books with a credit card, and the books he actually reads by paying cash.  Someone who never says the 'wrong' things online.  Pays cash for his MA lessons and does not join MA forums.  There are all kinds of predators, all kinds of threats, all kinds of defense.  The goal of camouflage is not necessarily to be passive and hope danger doesn't come your way.  A man in a Ghilly suit is camouflaged, and he definitely does not want to be seen.  You could even say he's passive - until he's ready.


----------



## Draven (Nov 18, 2009)

blindsage said:


> It seems to me that you are misinterpreting the idea based on terminology. It sounds like you don't like the idea of the word 'passive' in any way, shape or form, but I think that's missing the point. If you look at your constructed comparison between the 'Gray Man' and the 'Hard Target', there is no actually difference in the first three ideas.


 
I don't like the word passive, I like the words proactive. Proactive may not need to pre emptively defending yourself (AKA attacking unprovoked) but it does mean take action before the need to find yourself in an SD situation.



blindsage said:


> 1. How can you be 'passively' aware? You're either aware or you're not, there is no 'passive' vs. 'active' awareness.


 
OK based on what? Sure there is a differense between being passively aware and actively aware. Passively aware is when you are looking for a threat without looking like your looking for a threat. Active awareness is letting people around you know your taking notice.



blindsage said:


> 2. How can you 'passively' avoid potential threats? You either avoid them or you don't, there is no 'passive' vs. 'active' potential threat avoidance.


 
Again based on your opinion, passively avoid a threat is avoid a threat after it becomes apperent. Actively avoiding a threat is avoiding a threat with multiple signals of potental danger appear.



blindsage said:


> 3. How do you passive blend in, in relation to a potential threat? You're either doing it intentionally, or again you're unaware. There is no 'passive' vs. 'active' blending in.


 
Wrong again, that where there is a huge difference. Passively blending is in as us said being unaware but trying to blend into your environment. A good example is a conversation I had with a friend of mine about racial profiling, he presented me with a strawman arguement that if I was in a bad neighborhood and several "black youths" entered the 7-11 I was in flashing gang signs and talking violently I wouldn't racially profile them as a threat compared to the clean cut white guy in a suit buy cigatettes.

My response was that the clean cut white guy was what seem a threat to me because he is out of place. Allot of people try to passively blend in trying to appear meek and not worthy of notice. Thats passively blending in, being the wall flower. Actively blending in is getting out on the dance floor, intermingling and interacting with those around. It presents the image that your not just part of an uncaring herd which will go unnoticed but that you are an active memory of the social cliche and that you will be noticed. You need not go over the top and create a spetical which shows that your not part of the herd anyway.



blindsage said:


> 4. This is the one, possible, difference. You compare waiting to be threatened vs. pre-emptive action, but these are not mutually exclusive ideas. Depending on the context, either one may be appropriate. Are you going to attack someone because they look like a thug and they walked near you? Probably not, but you likely want to keep an eye on them. Should you wait until someone is in your face to take action when they were already acting aggressive and threatening (or just shady as hell)? Definitely not, but you don't want to punch somebody in the face for just a heated argument either.


 
Thats pretty much correct...



blindsage said:


> I think your interpretation of the concept is missing some elements and maybe needs to be reexamined, because your idea of the 'Hard Target' seems to meet everyone else's idea of the 'Gray Man'.


 
Thats depends on who you reference on the matter, those I been around lately don't see past suttle differences. You are 110% correct they are remarkably similar except for suttle differences. Most cases of where I've seen the Gray Man presented its presented as I've outlined. Passive more then Pro-active (guess thats a better word then simply active).



Bill Mattocks said:


> The GM fits his behavior to the situation. It can also mean projecting an air of _'not to be messed with'_ or _'dangerous if disturbed'_ when there is a good reason for it.
> 
> Camouflage in these situations does not mean meek or hidden. It means not drawing undue attention. Victims often stand out, while trying to blend in. One must know when and how to project oneself to avoid being singled out. That can mean being meek, or it can mean projecting strength. It depends upon the situation.


 
 Thats kinda a subjective answer and its subjective because many people simply are not aware or taught when to apply that response for what situation. Most criminals are or have been victimized by stronger criminals and any attempt to blend in can be recongnized as weakness and therefore preyed upon.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you may be taking the term 'camouflage' a bit to literally.


 
 Not at all, think about it. We dress a specific way to convey the message we desire to send. We dress well and groom ourselves well when going to work or especially so for job interviews. Criminals dress a specific way to impress upon you their affiliation, their attitude or they one they think you should believe and several other factors. Is all camouflage in one form or another. Trying to blend in with other potential victims marks you are a potential victim.



Bill Mattocks said:


> It can be, but it does not have to be. It means not being on the radar. That can mean blending in or it can mean standing out - but not in the way that marks one as a victim.


 
Thats true except, everyone is on the radar. Blending in with sheeps makes you as a sheep & blending in with wolves marks you wolf. You can't blend in with sheep as wolf and you can't blend in with the wolves as a sheep. A criminal is going to look out for competition (bigger stronger wolves) and easy meals (sheep) its just a matter of making a mistake thats lead you being a target. I prefer to be the "Old Goat" I'm not a threat the sheep and I'll not be easily taken by wolves.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The GM is a much larger concept than that. Imagine someone who buys the 'right' books with a credit card, and the books he actually reads by paying cash. Someone who never says the 'wrong' things online. Pays cash for his MA lessons and does not join MA forums. There are all kinds of predators, all kinds of threats, all kinds of defense. The goal of camouflage is not necessarily to be passive and hope danger doesn't come your way. A man in a Ghilly suit is camouflaged, and he definitely does not want to be seen. You could even say he's passive - until he's ready.


 
Actually I'd argue against someone in a ghillie being passive at blending in, first of all the meer act of actively pulling on a ghillie suit and using the proper individual movement techniques to get into place before wieghting is not exactly passive since he took active steps to blend in.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

I think you just want to argue.  OK with me.  Carry on.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 19, 2009)

This thread seems to ignoring the diference between amateur and professional criminals. Professional generally referring to ones with a specific objective theft/murder/rape etc, who follow a careful victim selction process and do so in a way to mimimise risk to themselves.

Amateur criminals on the other hand would cover those more likely to pick a fight because they've been drinking, or strutting about with a group of other young, probably not diploma wielding, red blooded males.

In the case of the former the arguement was put forth that utilising the passive defence of trying to blend in could make one a potential target of the professional's.

However it could just as easily be argued that the more active Hard Target approach, could antagonize or be seen as a challenge to any amateur criminal who felt confident (either through alcohol, numbers, weaponry) enough to assault.


----------



## Draven (Nov 19, 2009)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> This thread seems to ignoring the diference between amateur and professional criminals. Professional generally referring to ones with a specific objective theft/murder/rape etc, who follow a careful victim selction process and do so in a way to mimimise risk to themselves.
> 
> Amateur criminals on the other hand would cover those more likely to pick a fight because they've been drinking, or strutting about with a group of other young, probably not diploma wielding, red blooded males.
> 
> ...


 
Now that brings up an interesting point, pro Vs amatuer criminals. Which comes down to this what makes a pro or an amatuer criminal? To me in one word "success." 

I don't consider people with overriding mental or emotional disorders acting out as criminals in the true since of the word, don't get me wrong what they do is a crime but its crime without an objective. Take the difference between a mugger and a bank robber, mugger's look for easy immidiate targets & bank robbers plan but still look for easy targets. Rapists on the other hand are driven by  an overwhelming need for control & personal gradification. The same can be said of violence addicted "thugs" who need to prove their toughness. They are both driven by imidiate personnal gradification.

What you discribe as an amatuer criminal I just write off as a dumb @$$ or nothing more then a bully, since they are basicly satisfying a emotional or psychological need for control. So following that logic most bullies simply have the goal of control over someone else through violence or threat of violence. I suppose one could consider the mugger a bully trying to steal your "lunch money" with a higher level of violence. There is no easy one step answer to that situation without going into pointless strawman arguements, except perhaps avoiding a threat & perhaps pre-emptive violence if the threat starts following you, depending on conditions.

I don't see every threat to me as coming from a criminal element because many times violence can be as simple "soccer moms & softball dads" or the two idiots fighting over Yankees Vs Red Socks (I know nothing of baseball BTW) and in the heat of emotion trying to gain control/dominance of the arguement under threat of violence turned act of violence. Thats a hugely different intent then the intent to do severe bodily harm to another person or to aquire something through force.

I was always taught that unlike violence crime is based on a simple triangle of three factors; opportunity, ability and risk/reward. If you present an opportunity for a criminal to target you & he/she is sure of their ability to target you & the risk is worth the reward a criminal will target you. If the ability to make you a victim is unsure it, rises the risk level in comparision to the reward & even if an opportunity is this there, you are are a less desired target. If the opportunity is their and the ability is there, the risk involved is reduced & you become a more desired target.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 19, 2009)

A point I would consider to important though is that behaviour which might deter an attacker in some cases might provoke an attacker in others. 
Another point being that success is not what I would consider the primary mark between amateur and professional assaults. Even the most seasoned of criminals can make a slip up, and even the most inexperienced can get lucky and plant a knife in your ribs.
And whether or not your refer to a potential attacker as an amateur criminal or a mother beeping beep beep, they still represent as much of a threat as the professionals.
Frequently more so depending on the culture you live in.
So which approach is more useful to you is going to be heavily influenced by what sort of threat you're most likely to encounter.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> People decisions and lifestyles place them in trouble FAR more often than the "random crime" meme.
> 
> Random victimhood does happen, but FAR more people become victims due to their own decision making process.
> 
> The "gray man" approach has merit..if you understand the concept.


 
Archangel M do not have a heart attack, but I agree with you. 

It is like me, I do not go to certain parts of a town that I know are bad. If I go out with friends I suggest areas and places less likely to find the element of trouble. I even drive 45 mintues to areas that where a push and shove would be the talk for weeks versus the shooting before I walked in the door. 

The Concept has many levels and what I stated is just a small example.


But I do pay attention to my surroundings even in the better places. I know that I will never be able to blend in given my size. So, I do the best to be aware and choose environments that make it easier for me to blend then to not blend.


----------



## blindsage (Nov 19, 2009)

Draven said:


> I don't like the word passive, I like the words proactive. Proactive may not need to pre emptively defending yourself (AKA attacking unprovoked) but it does mean take action before the need to find yourself in an SD situation.


It's evident you don't like the word passive, but the issue is that you take the dislike for that word and then seem to impose unfounded meaning on the ideas presented because of it.



> OK based on what? Sure there is a differense between being passively aware and actively aware. Passively aware is when you are looking for a threat without looking like your looking for a threat. Active awareness is letting people around you know your taking notice.


No, awareness is awareness, you either are or you aren't. What you talking about is how you act in relation to the threat after you perceive it. You can't make that choice unless you're aware to begin with, it's not passive or active, it's just being aware.



> Again based on your opinion, passively avoid a threat is avoid a threat after it becomes apperent. Actively avoiding a threat is avoiding a threat with multiple signals of potental danger appear.


No, not according to my opinion, according to the definition of the words. Yes, there are different ways to avoid a threat, but you either do it or you don't, it's always active. You are inventing definitions that don't exist in order to express certain ideas you have and it is interfering with the communication of them. Avoiding a threat after it becomes apparent, or before is still avoiding the threat and both require intent and action and therefore are active, there is no 'passive' version, you prefer one response over the other, no problem, but you're conflating defintions.



> Wrong again, that where there is a huge difference. Passively blending is in as us said being unaware but trying to blend into your environment. A good example is a conversation I had with a friend of mine about racial profiling, he presented me with a strawman arguement that if I was in a bad neighborhood and several "black youths" entered the 7-11 I was in flashing gang signs and talking violently I wouldn't racially profile them as a threat compared to the clean cut white guy in a suit buy cigatettes.


If you are unaware then you cannot intentionally blend to avoid a threat, you have no reason to. I believe you are drawing a distinction between reactions (again) once you have perceive a potential threat, but you have to perceive it to begin with (an action, therefore 'active'). You don't like the idea of responding in a 'passive' way to a threat, again no problem, but your response is still 'active' either way. The Gray Man idea is not a 'passive' response concept.



> My response was that the clean cut white guy was what seem a threat to me because he is out of place. Allot of people try to passively blend in trying to appear meek and not worthy of notice. Thats passively blending in, being the wall flower. Actively blending in is getting out on the dance floor, intermingling and interacting with those around. It presents the image that your not just part of an uncaring herd which will go unnoticed but that you are an active memory of the social cliche and that you will be noticed. You need not go over the top and create a spetical which shows that your not part of the herd anyway.


That a great example of not being a passive person, but again it is an example of how people react to the enviroment (or don't). You're interpreting this concept (the Gray Man) based on an imposed idea of passivity, not on the actual concept.





> Thats pretty much correct...


Cool, glad we agree.



> Thats depends on who you reference on the matter, those I been around lately don't see past suttle differences. You are 110% correct they are remarkably similar except for suttle differences. Most cases of where I've seen the Gray Man presented its presented as I've outlined. Passive more then Pro-active (guess thats a better word then simply active).


I think you're the one not getting the subtleties here. You hear 'passive' and it sets off all kinds of bells, I don't think you're really hearing the ideas.
There are ideas in the concept that coincide with yours exactly, and then there are ideas that conflict, but aren't necessarily wrong, they're just ideas you don't like.


----------



## Draven (Nov 25, 2009)

Actually I am extremely aware of where the Gray Man concept comes from, it is also completely passive in nature. The concept is specifically linked with the Intelligence Services & Police work involving long-term sting operations. The principle is often and was first suggested by instructors who either brought the idea to the civilian self-defense industry or who simply copied the idea from service manuals. 

Unfortunately, the reality is that the idea within the context of avoiding notice by casual observes or active observers looking for someone trying to infiltrate the organization remains the same. The "Gray Man Concept" is fine for infiltrating a group by pretending the be half-in or just another follower. However it serves no purpose in the way of detering a criminal assault. 

More so, you can't apply a concept intended to passively resist an enemy force by blending in and gather intelligence to a self-defense situation, unless you plan to intentionally get become a target to fill out police reports which is just... Yeah.


----------

