# Sheeps, Sheepdogs & Wolves; Why Psychological Arcgetypes are dangerious



## Draven

This is somewhat realated to the What You Can/Can't Do thread; only in that I feel to many people are playing the psychological archetype game with self-defense laws. You see a) Laws are determined by the courts & not by LEOs and well b) unless someone is a lawyer they aren't qualified to give legal advise. So I'm going to take another turn we are going to look at psychology; particularly Frued, Jung & B.F. Skinner. You can skip that if you wish & go directly to the "Heart of the Matter..."

*Frued: Id, Ego & Super-Ego*
The basic principle of Frued's psychology was that much of the mind's processes are done without conscious thought with more then 2/3rds the mind opportating at un contious level. Frued also had a deeply contested belief that one's interactions with one's parents was also a foundation for how one reacted with the opposite sex, but that plays no part in this discussion...

More so Frued divided the mind into 3 parts:
The Id: is fully uncontious instinct and deals specifically with personal wants & desires...
The Ego: The ego is both conscious & unconscious a bridge between the Id & Super-Ego & deals with external needs in one's environment...
The Super-Ego: The super-ego is unconscious and the source of individual morality & ethics, more so the super-ego is product of one's conditioning.

So then while Id says "I am..." as in "I am hungery" the Ego looks at external sources to full fill that need & also reacts to sensory information. The Ego smells food & connects the internal sense of hunger with external sensory input of food. There are times when the Ego's sensory input also triggers the Id's desires. The Super-Ego is the restraint taught to us as children and young adults; its a product of individual ideologies, cultural indentity & rewarded compliance via experiences. So the super ego is what tells us not to steal the food who smell or to do in a way which reduces our risks.

*Carl Jung: Psychological Archetypes = Social Indentity & Roleplaying*
Carl Jung was many things, among them an avid occultists; a student of both Eastern Mysticism & Western Occultism, and a direct student of Sigmond Frued's psychiatry & compared it with his occult studies. Many of which, & especially from the Eastern Schools dealt with Psychological factors. Comparing Frued to Plato & other ancient occult sourse; Carl Jung introduced the Psychological Archetype Theory, which was based on the Greek Occult belief in a true name & reinforced with Frued's own unrelated psychological theories...

In essence the individual seeks to define themselves based on social identity or psychological archetype & justifies said actions based on the pretext of the achetype. For example archetype of the "hero" which leads others to do the "right thing" & justify it as a pretext based on the archetype; Lil Billy wants Marry but Marry sees Billy as just a friend, so Billy professes to be the brotherly type acting on the pretext of being the "hero" & "protecting Mary" chases away any of Mary's suitures leaving her to eventually turn to him. All a common adolesent behavior...

*B. F. Skinner: Experience shapes the Mind*
Skinner was a more recent psychologist who created the theory of radical behaviorism and again falling back to Frued & Jung as source material explained in greater detail how experience particularly positive (rewarding) influences & negative (punishing) influences are used to build associated beliefs & habits. 

Basicly creating sensory data via the Ego & condition the Super-Ego (as an natural progress of Frued's threoy) but by limited the options available to the Ego. Thus building a conscious (ego based) & unconscious (super-ego based) memory of reward & punishment to create an even more restrictive application of the psychological archetypes (the end result).

*Now the Heart of the Matter;*
Many people seem to buy into & believe the Sheep, Wolves & Sheepdog archetype arguement espoused by Ret. Col Dave Grossman. Grossman's sheep, wolf & sheepdog archetypes are surrogates for the Victim (the Innocent: Jung), Villian (the Shadow: Jung) & Hero archetypes.

The Hero: The hero is savior of the innocents & punisher of the villians.
The Victim: Is the poor innocent plagued by the villian and dependant on the Hero to come save them.
The Villian: Is generally a projection as no really likes apply the archetype to themselves, is the monsters we fight both within ourselves; our own sinister drives, & without those we see as the enemy. Problem is even serial killers want to offer a pretext to justify their actions & came they are simply "victims" of a greater evil within society.

The huge problem with this idea surrogate archetypes is;
 a) No one chooses to be the villian & waiting around of a hero to come save you is a dangerious & irresponsible mindset to have. No one is the innocent little lamb awaiting to sheep dog to protect them from being slaughtered. 

b) No one is the hero or the villian, they simply are human being who are in all ways equally as flawed. Heros & villians have one thing in common; they both have strength the innocents do not. 

Take a child's bed time story or even common myths; the villian often has poor he/she lords over the weak and innocent peasants, a hero comes to save the ibbocent peasants (usually because hes chasing a beautiful princess) where he fights and defeats the evil villian and lives happily ever after in the villians place. Its pretty in fairy tales but lets be adults here...

The Villian or Monster; is someone who has strength & uses it...
Princess; is the right to rule, a claim to the throne & personnal power. She could look like pig but her position still makes her beautiful.
The Hero; is a lesser evil who saves the people from the greater evil, but is ultimately as just dangerious as the villian. As they both have strength...
Peasants; the poor innocents who have no power to protect themselves and must rely on waiting for a "hero figure" to arrive.

c) We live in a culture where any kind of decent from the traditional constraints of society are seen as being "villianious." Therefore creating various sub-cultures within our culture & splinter societies within society, each one relying on the Hero, Victim & Villian archetypes...

Look at the Mofia which used the "hero" archetype as a pretext to justify criminal activity because it was "us" (Italians) versus them (Non-Italians). And we see the same process repeated with other groups using various honorable ideologies ranging from equal rights & religion to some blurred "greater good" appealing to emotional & cultural/sociological archetypes to seek justifications.

Ah but what happens when the hero never comes..? What happens when you strip away the viel of BS to the heart of the matter? You find that there are only two types of people; Wolves; those stronger, smarter & more willing to use it, & Sheep; those weaker, dumbers or not willing to exercise what strength thay have. Yes, their a wolves in sheeps clothing; the strpng you bait you in with fiented weakness, but they are still wolves none the less...

You see the mind; the Ego rationalizes the reistance of Super-Ego with the desires of the Id using an internal archetype struggle within ourselves. The Ego appeases the Id's desire for self-protection & it's own desire to not be harmed with Super-Ego's resentment for using violence by creating several different archetype based excuses;
*I am the Innocent; a hero come save...
*I am the Sage; wise & above common solutions...
*I am the Good Guy; who is above doing evil or evil & will suffer the evil to protect others...
*I am the Trickster; cunning and deceptive...
*I am the Hero; the savior & punisher of evil men; I will do what I must & be justified...
*I am the Villian; the monster, I do what I want; right or wrong, because I have the strength to do so...

Problem, occurs when you look at the threat of violence coming from another human being you make excuses to justify your restraint or in action. You give yourself a psychological reward for being weak; perhaps your simpliy obeying the law, & in so doing falling into a cycle of rewarding yourself for being a victim. A hero archetype is further more a danger all its own; after all when the hero changes his stance from protecting to punishing he, becomes a villian himself to all but his own mind.

Much to surpise of most the most psychologically stable personality is the shadow, the villian. You see the villian doesn't deny whom he is & he is not seeking justification. That doesn't mean the "bad guy" can't do good either; just as the "good guy" is not immune to doing bad. Much as when Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." we have all done "bad things" but believing that excusing them or hiding from them does anything to remove that fact only casts us deeper into the proverbial shadow...


----------



## Archangel M

I think you are reading too much into Grossman. This isn't about being a cop or a civilian. It's about your mindset.

Its a metaphor for what you choose to be..are you going to allow yourself to be a victim (sheep) dependent on the sheepdog to come and save you from the wolf or are you going to be a sheepdog yourself? Who bears primary responsibility for your safety? Yourself or someone else? THAT is what this metaphor is about.

Getting pedantic about a metaphor is as bad as believing a metaphor is some sort of law or philosophy.


----------



## MJS

I may not be following where you're going with this Draven.  I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into?  If thats the case, I'll say this:  at one point in my life, I guess I would've been considered a sheep.  However, due to the way the sheep are usually treated, and due to the way the world changes, I've become a sheepdog. 

Much better choice IMHO.  Mind their own business, dont go out looking for trouble, but when trouble comes to them, they face it, rather than turning their backs.


----------



## SensibleManiac

I won't go too much into this but even though I do think you are on the right path and have some good ideas, some of what you're writing is just confused and meaningless.



> Look at the Mofia which used the "hero" archetype as a pretext to justify criminal activity because it was "us" (Italians) versus them (Non-Italians).



The Mafia originated in several parts of Italy, (primarily Sicily) and was Italians against Italians. Yes they eventually spread to other parts of the world and the US, but your argument is just wrong. They didn't develop to be against non-italians.

Anyway I would say keep studying and thinking, as this is how you develop critical thinking skills and understanding.

But you still have a way to go.

As for the law, you do have a point, in the eyes of the law what someone regards as self defense because of some delusion they had about their role, (they are the sheepdog protecting the sheep against the wolf) or I am innocent and I protected myself against the villain, is completely meaningless in the eyes of the courts. 
Whether you have a chance to escape and were indeed protecting yourself from an immediate threat that you could not have otherwise escaped is all that the law sees.
How you view yourself or the other person is completely irrelevant to the law.
Did you have no other way out and defended yourself from an actual threat, or did you have justification in perceiving a threat.
The law does differ in different States and countries but the meaning of self defense is generally the same. 
Although what is allowed as self defense or not is viewed differently. 
I am not a lawyer but anyone training for self defense should familiarize themselves with the law concerning it.


----------



## Draven

Archangel M said:


> I think you are reading too much into Grossman. This isn't about being a cop or a civilian. It's about your mindset.
> 
> Getting pedantic about a metaphor is as bad as believing a metaphor is some sort of law or philosophy.


 
Grossman's metaphor is drawn from Jungarian psychology in archetype theory, more the advancement in the theory made by (damn can't remember his name) in the past twenty years. Unfortunately Grossman is either an idiot unknowingly reinforcing a victim mentality (which I don't believe) or (and the most plausible) allowing his own views in support of authoritarian figures cause him to place such people in authoritarian positions into a almost "sainted heroic" role. True, I could easily have been less academic in the matter it is something that strikes a cord with me on the academic (as it seems deliberate propaganda based on Jungarian psychology) level & a bit of the "WTF is everyone thinking but into that BS?" personal level.



MJS said:


> I may not be following where you're going with this Draven. I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into?


 
Not quite... My point is less about what psychological archetype a person uses to define themselves and more to stripping it away... Consider it a mental execise in "surpassing form" to better function.

I did include some psychological points to clearify were I was coming from but, the point doesn't get made until the after the "heart of the Matter" part of post. All that info on Frued, Jung & Skinner is just source info to give you an idea of where I get my stated opinions... Sensible Manic is close to where I'm going...



SensibleManiac said:


> I won't go too much into this but even though I do think you are on the right path and have some good ideas, some of what you're writing is just confused and meaningless.


 
How so..? I was pretty much multi-tasking typeing that with some other stuff so I may have gotten a bit side tracked.



SensibleManiac said:


> The Mafia originated in several parts of Italy, (primarily Sicily) and was Italians against Italians. Yes they eventually spread to other parts of the world and the US, but your argument is just wrong. They didn't develop to be against non-italians.


 
I was limiting my scope more here in the US, the mofia in Itiality & Sicily use a different tactic then here in the US were they can use real or imagined "racial strife" as justification for their activities. The same tactic is seen used among street gangs; many times on the issues of race, some using the idea of "rich" against "poor" & some based on geographic locations. But, you are right, which should go without saying...


----------



## jjwalters

MJS said:


> I may not be following where you're going with this Draven.  I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into?  If thats the case, I'll say this:  at one point in my life, I guess I would've been considered a sheep.  However, due to the way the sheep are usually treated, and due to the way the world changes, I've become a sheepdog.
> 
> Much better choice IMHO.  Mind their own business, dont go out looking for trouble, but when trouble comes to them, they face it, rather than turning their backs.


 
I have always considered myself a wolf in sheeps clothing.......

I will BAAAAA for a while (until you step into my space aggressively) then if you don't leave really quick I will chew your ear off


----------



## Archangel M

You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is. 

I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.


----------



## kaizasosei

Great read Draven! Thanks for the ideas.  I myself have studied some psychology.  Should have started way earlier though.  Still remember how back in the day, everything was going ok in my relationship until my lady started psych classes and turned pyschic or something.  Well, she called it Freudian slips and busted my *** over and over again.-geez-who knew!?

So after picking myself up and dusting off a bit, i decided to get informed. So i got into different teachings of psychology.  I must say, from that which i have had the opportunity to check out, the teachings of jung apeal to me. I like how he incorporates the ideas of gender in the anima and animus.  Also, i like how there is this open feeling allowing room for other explainations.  Sometimes, freud seems to explain everything a little too well.  Freud figured out all his shiznit in vienna. nuff said.  

Jung was something of a protege or apprentice of Freud if i'm not misinformed.  I do think that the teachings of Jung get a little lost when he freely blends his ideas with spiritual and alchemical mythology but nevertheless a very sincere approach in my book.



j


----------



## Makalakumu

Archangel M said:


> You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.
> 
> I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.



That's a great point.  People are diverse and not easily pigeonholed in real life, but this metaphor does serve a purpose.  As a non-LEO and martial artist, I find a lot of value in Grossman's work.  When it comes to my family and the people I love, I am the sheepdog.  We all can step in and out of these archetypes for various reasons.


----------



## Draven

Archangel M said:


> You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.
> 
> I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.


 
Thats where the archetypes become dangerious; even in modern literature to ancient mythology the "hero" often breaks the rules and does a necessary evil for the greater good. So just as using the "hero" archetype might get one LEO to rush into a Columbine style school shooting (against SOP) thinking their job as "sheepdog" is to protect & it could also cause a different LEO to see himself as "the punisher of wicked" & fabricate evidence against someone he belives is guilty. Whether that person is guilty or not doesn't matter, since the LEO would then be a criminal himself for violating the law & worst responsible for either imprisioning an innocent man or giving the criminal a means to get back on the street.

Most likely as an individual's emotions effect their judgement the same individuals bounce between the two extremes. Every archetype has a light-side and shadow-side; positive & negative interpetations. The problem is that teaching only one or the other completely removes the fact that allot of archetypes are  guides for rationalizations. Hitler, Caesar & Stalan were some of most brutal and sadistic of tyrannts; yet they often approached their actions from rationalized pretext of being a "hero" and having to serve "the greater good." In fact, Julius Caesar wrote much to the same effect in his own chronicals...



kaizasosei said:


> Jung was something of a protege or apprentice of Freud if i'm not misinformed. I do think that the teachings of Jung get a little lost when he freely blends his ideas with spiritual and alchemical mythology but nevertheless a very sincere approach in my book.


 
Jung's primary interest in psychology was unravelling the "secrets" of the Ancient Mystery Schools. From what I've gathered of the occult schools many taught simple (almost zen like) philosophy, human psychology & some elements of a science but they used metaphor to conceal intent. So Jung went to Frued to learn the science behind the mysticism, Jung was also quoted in my philosophy class since our psychological archetypes of self-definition are the foundation for our philosophical prospectives.

For example; it is often held belief streaming from the Greek mystery cults that if you know a person's "true name" you can control them, it is often used as a metaphor about "controlling the natural elements"
 of fire, water, earth, air & spirit. Now without getting too far into this; each element relates to an emotional state, the true name is a psychological archetype & if you can learn a person's self-definition & influence their emotional state you can direct the psychological pretext for their actions. Thus the "hero" can be "pushed" toward a path leading to anger & resentment & be move closer to being the avenger then the protector. Least thats the idea...



maunakumu said:


> That's a great point. People are diverse and not easily pigeonholed in real life, but this metaphor does serve a purpose. As a non-LEO and martial artist, I find a lot of value in Grossman's work. When it comes to my family and the people I love, I am the sheepdog. We all can step in and out of these archetypes for various reasons.


 
Thats somewhat right & somewhat wrong, the archetype isn't a box its a compass. A compass doesn't tell you where you are it simply lets you know which way is North (South if you're below to equator) & you have to get your barings and go from there. The archetype is an idea & what you do is rationalized by that archetype; every achetype has a good & bad/light & shadow side to it. Depending on how you rationalize your actions & thoughts determines where you stand in the mix.


----------



## Archangel M

Draven said:


> Thats where the archetypes become dangerious; even in modern literature to ancient mythology the "hero" often breaks the rules and does a necessary evil for the greater good. So just as using the "hero" archetype might get one LEO to rush into a Columbine style school shooting (against SOP) thinking their job as "sheepdog" is to protect & it could also cause a different LEO to see himself as "the punisher of wicked" & fabricate evidence against someone he belives is guilty.



Sorry but Im going to be blunt...you are talking out of your ***. What is your experience and expertise with police policy?

IMO, this statement alone illustrates your ignorance of rapid deployment tactics and police "policy". Something of which I AM an authority. And if you really believe that the sheepdog METAPHOR is the cause of police impropriety than I think that you are making MORE of a reach with your little Jung dissertation here than Grossman ever has, and I am a critic of Grossman overreaching with his "research" myself.


----------



## Draven

Reserve MP after active duty; had to learn Fed Codes to deal with civilians right beside UCMJ regs, And about 80% of the NCOs were civilian LEO with less then 50% of the enlisted either planning to go LEO, I have a good source of info. Oh yeah & I have active duty Infantry School under my belt.

If I'm ignorant educate me...? Please explain..? 

Otherwise, I'll assume I hit the nail on the head with you. Here we go with LEOs are "Good People" & can do no wrong. The problem with my point isn't that I reading too much into Grossman's assessment; its that applying the science which Grossman isn't. The problem is when you invoke an archetype, you have to invoke both aspects of that achetype good and bad; because poeple are innately both good & bad. You cannot say that a person is beyond doing bad things; just because they have a position within society or they invoke part of an archetype. Grossman's anology is very much like the similar annologies used by Hitler or Stallen, all three approached the annology from only one side & didn't give a complete picture...

I don't think Grossman's Metaphor is the cause of anyhting but it does point to a specific & dangerious throught process of justification & social ideologies that plauge far more then LE or Military...


----------



## Archangel M

I was an MP too...most of my "LE expertise" consisted of route recon/security, MSR patrolling, defile security and checkpoints. And back in my day we actually did law and order missions, now it's the DOD coppers who do that. So I have enough experience to be "underwhelmed" with an MP's opinion on modern civilian LE developments.

First off..most department "policy" for active shooter response IS 1-4 man entry's. Up till a year or 2 ago the SOP was the 4-man diamond, however most modern active shooters cap themselves when confronted with counter-fire and waiting for 4+ officers to assemble means many more people getting killed. So most depts. are altering their rapid deployment plan to get a "sheepdog" inside to stop the "wolf" from killing ASAP.

It only took 2 DOD cops to take care of the Ft. Hood shooter..how many more would have been killed had they waited for a few more officers?

IMO your focusing on Carl Jung as the linchpin of this "philosophy" is as flawed as Grossman's dependence on S.L.A. Marshall's "research" on men under fire. You both are taking an interesting point and stretching it WAY too far in order to support your worldview. Show me some evidence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Warning:  Claiming to be something you're not makes people who have been there and done that a tad angry.  Stolen valor and all that.  That's my one and only warning, then I will cut loose.


----------



## blink13

Bill Mattocks said:


>



29 Palms?  Camp Wilson, I do believe?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dave699 said:


> 29 Palms?  Camp Wilson, I do believe?



You are correct, sir.  Circa 1981 or 1982.  That's me trying to tan my pale Welsh-American skin on the hood of my M880 at Camp Wilson.  I was with MP Co, HQBn, 1st MarDiv out of Camp Pendleton, CA.  We did Combined Arms Exercises (CAX) every couple of months to 29 Stumps.

And how did you happen to know it was Camp Wilson?  You also find sand in your c-rats once or twice?

EDIT: Just checked out your profile.  Semper Fi, bro.


----------



## blink13

Been there, done that, a few times over - except the sand was in my MREs, thank you.


----------



## blink13

Bill - you have a PM.


----------



## Draven

Michael I think your too focused on the Grossman/LEO aspect & I'm by no means intending to lay this singularly at the feet of LE or Military men. Quite frankly Grossman is a moron; on the archetype aspect because he intentionally withdraws the light/shadow (good/bad) aspect of any archetype. I simply use Grossman because he is the most "preached" docturine in my self-defense forums. To place this in more an MA prospective; its like people defining themselves by a particular style or strategy; like those who define themselves as being "strikers" or "grapplers" focus on how they define their style; in that respect I define myself as a fighter and endever to perfect as many elements of combat as possible.

Another example of this is found not in Grossman but in The Mind of the Terrorist by Jerrold Post, one of the foundations of book is that "terrorists" are prefectly normal people who have allowed themselves to assume the self-definition of the "Hero" or "Sheepdog" from Al-Queada to the IRA each person is constantly taught to be the "hero" & fight the projected "villian." Grossman is just a "finger pointing to the moon" & a talking point for me... Try to look past that.


----------



## The Last Legionary

I love when pseudo-intellectuals pop in and pontificate on a subject yet can't work a spellcheck. It shoots their shoe boxing in the foot.


----------



## blink13

Concur.  I was also wondering how many different ways one could spell "Stalin."  It greatly diminishes the point of his argument, which I don't really agree with, anyway.


----------



## punisher73

Archangel M said:


> You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.
> 
> I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.


 
Correct, to my knowledge Grossman doesn't do a whole lot of civilian programs.  I attended his "Bulletproof Mindset" seminar a few years ago and the Sheepdogs analogy was part of that training.  Since then the article has been printed to a wide audience.

As to procedures of military vs. LEO there are quite a few.  In fact, after Columbine, most if not all police departments took a step back and looked at their procedures to deal with a situation like that.  Our department trains to go in with whoever is there first.  If it's 4 officers then great, if it's only 2 then that's what you make do with.  For school resource/liaison officers, you are already there so you go first and give as much intel as possible to responders and try to contain the situation.

That requires a specific mindset that a civilian doesn't necessarily have to have to take care of themselves or their family.

I think that the purpose of the article was very clear and then intent of throwing out archetypes etc and talking about their "shadow side" is an attempt to drum up marketing business and stretch the metaphor into aspects it wasn't meant to.  Now, the person can peddle their own brand of self-defense, because the police are evil and the bad guys are evil, so you can only rely on yourself and what I have to offer.


----------



## Draven

Punisher, you seem to be missing my intent here which is to address the dangers of applying archetype definitions without understand them. Grossman's Sheep, Wolf & Sheepdog theory is not just expressed to LE/Military, its in the public forum. Grossman marketted the idea on the web. 

Now you & Archangel, have done a great job in proving how someone can become be so dependant on the archetype; as an expression of self that they cling to justifications for it. The "shadow side" of the archetype is the other side of the theory, that a person has to examine to apply any archetype realistically. Its not stretching the metaphor anymore then then saying, that MA training ends at the level of "black belt" when there are still more grade and other elements of study. 

An archetype is; _In Jungian psychology, *an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.*_

Just as I did expand on the symbolic pattern of though of Grossman's origional work to find what I call a defect in his archetype theory. Its not the limitations expressed in the metaphor that define it, its the imagery it invokes thats makes metaphors so power as to tool of expression. Its the ability to expand & rationalize the imagery of any metaphor that makes it dangerious to see it as only positive or negative. 

You keep defending Grossman's theory & suggestively attacking my motives which seems to show a fear of facing a negative rationalization of imagery of the metaphor. Why is that? Feeling a need to justify yourself or perhaps its a matter of defending your own self-definition. How about we forget Grossman for a second & examine other archetypes..?


----------



## Archangel M

Of course its all on... "US".

Some of us have actually read and seen Grossman. The whole Sheepdog thing was an addendum at the end of the bulletproof mind seminar. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You have proven nothing because you haven't even really presented a point.

Have any depth to this theory of yours or is Jung it?

Jung=fuzzy mysticism riddled with modernist stereotypes and elements of racism. And his archetypes are ambiguous, simplistic constructs that simplistic people attempt to use as pigeonholes to order their reality. Or use it as a baffle with ******** smokescreen to justify THEIR little construct of reality. 

Your pop-psych babble isn't impressing me any more than Grossmans use of SLA Marshalls anecdotal research of WWII soldiers battle experience as "proof" of mans behavior "nature" in combat did.


----------



## The Master

Some spend too much valuable yet finite time postulating the whyness of which, while ignoring the much more pertinent whichness of why. The Possibilities of intellectual engagement allude to to purposes both sublime yet pristine. Do you understand yet the purpose for this existence yet? Have you computed the potential for participants to see through the illusion to the imaginary nature of prescience? Has the truth permeated the cerebellum of wanton desire into your deeper recesses? Ah, but you see, an existence based on impaired vision, prevents one from identifying the true predators.


----------



## Makalakumu

The Master said:


> Some spend too much valuable yet finite time postulating the whyness of which, while ignoring the much more pertinent whichness of why. The Possibilities of intellectual engagement allude to to purposes both sublime yet pristine. Do you understand yet the purpose for this existence yet? Have you computed the potential for participants to see through the illusion to the imaginary nature of prescience? Has the truth permeated the cerebellum of wanton desire into your deeper recesses? Ah, but you see, an existence based on impaired vision, prevents one from identifying the true predators.



:bangahead:

Next time I take something too seriously, I'm going to read this post.  LOL!


----------



## DocWard

For what it's worth, courts don't determine laws, the legislature does. Courts apply laws. Police and prosecutors collectively make up law enforcement, and are, as the name implies, responsible for enforcing the laws.

As for the rest, when I was first exposed to Grossman's concept of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, my first thought was that it presented a relatively simple method of explaining, in very general terms, why people do what they do, and respond they way they do. In its own way, it is a "pep talk" for those in the law enforcement community. I believe anyone reading more into it than that does so at their own risk. To extrapolate that, based upon this analogy someone who sees in themselves the "hero" archetype may do "necessary evil" in order to render justice is a reach. If Grossman's analogy sends someone over that edge, they were teetering to begin with.

I don't know of anyone in the law enforcement community who will assert that those within the larger community "can do no wrong." IF I ever meet that person, I will take everything else they say with a grain of salt.

As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an analogy is just an analogy.


----------



## MJS

Draven said:


> Punisher, you seem to be missing my intent here which is to address the dangers of applying archetype definitions without understand them. Grossman's Sheep, Wolf & Sheepdog theory is not just expressed to LE/Military, its in the public forum. Grossman marketted the idea on the web.
> 
> Now you & Archangel, have done a great job in proving how someone can become be so dependant on the archetype; as an expression of self that they cling to justifications for it. The "shadow side" of the archetype is the other side of the theory, that a person has to examine to apply any archetype realistically. Its not stretching the metaphor anymore then then saying, that MA training ends at the level of "black belt" when there are still more grade and other elements of study.
> 
> An archetype is; _In Jungian psychology, *an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.*_
> 
> Just as I did expand on the symbolic pattern of though of Grossman's origional work to find what I call a defect in his archetype theory. Its not the limitations expressed in the metaphor that define it, its the imagery it invokes thats makes metaphors so power as to tool of expression. Its the ability to expand & rationalize the imagery of any metaphor that makes it dangerious to see it as only positive or negative.
> 
> You keep defending Grossman's theory & suggestively attacking my motives which seems to show a fear of facing a negative rationalization of imagery of the metaphor. Why is that? Feeling a need to justify yourself or perhaps its a matter of defending your own self-definition. How about we forget Grossman for a second & examine other archetypes..?


 


Draven said:


> Michael I think your too focused on the Grossman/LEO aspect & I'm by no means intending to lay this singularly at the feet of LE or Military men. Quite frankly Grossman is a moron; on the archetype aspect because he intentionally withdraws the light/shadow (good/bad) aspect of any archetype. I simply use Grossman because he is the most "preached" docturine in my self-defense forums. To place this in more an MA prospective; its like people defining themselves by a particular style or strategy; like those who define themselves as being "strikers" or "grapplers" focus on how they define their style; in that respect I define myself as a fighter and endever to perfect as many elements of combat as possible.
> 
> Another example of this is found not in Grossman but in The Mind of the Terrorist by Jerrold Post, one of the foundations of book is that "terrorists" are prefectly normal people who have allowed themselves to assume the self-definition of the "Hero" or "Sheepdog" from Al-Queada to the IRA each person is constantly taught to be the "hero" & fight the projected "villian." Grossman is just a "finger pointing to the moon" & a talking point for me... Try to look past that.


 


Draven said:


> Grossman's metaphor is drawn from Jungarian psychology in archetype theory, more the advancement in the theory made by (damn can't remember his name) in the past twenty years. Unfortunately Grossman is either an idiot unknowingly reinforcing a victim mentality (which I don't believe) or (and the most plausible) allowing his own views in support of authoritarian figures cause him to place such people in authoritarian positions into a almost "sainted heroic" role. True, I could easily have been less academic in the matter it is something that strikes a cord with me on the academic (as it seems deliberate propaganda based on Jungarian psychology) level & a bit of the "WTF is everyone thinking but into that BS?" personal level.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite... My point is less about what psychological archetype a person uses to define themselves and more to stripping it away... Consider it a mental execise in "surpassing form" to better function.
> 
> I did include some psychological points to clearify were I was coming from but, the point doesn't get made until the after the "heart of the Matter" part of post. All that info on Frued, Jung & Skinner is just source info to give you an idea of where I get my stated opinions... Sensible Manic is close to where I'm going...
> 
> 
> 
> How so..? I was pretty much multi-tasking typeing that with some other stuff so I may have gotten a bit side tracked.
> 
> 
> 
> I was limiting my scope more here in the US, the mofia in Itiality & Sicily use a different tactic then here in the US were they can use real or imagined "racial strife" as justification for their activities. The same tactic is seen used among street gangs; many times on the issues of race, some using the idea of "rich" against "poor" & some based on geographic locations. But, you are right, which should go without saying...


 
While Grossman may have been gearing this 'idea' to a certain group of people, I still feel that the average person can take advantage of what it is he's trying to say.  Regardless of whatever laws are in place, I dont think there is any law about being confident and showing it.  

As far as the law goes....personally, I'm not overly worried about that.  I've already addressed my thoughts on Sd, so no sense in rehashing it again.


----------



## Draven

DocWard said:


> For what it's worth, courts don't determine laws, the legislature does. Courts apply laws. Police and prosecutors collectively make up law enforcement, and are, as the name implies, responsible for enforcing the laws.
> 
> As for the rest, when I was first exposed to Grossman's concept of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, my first thought was that it presented a relatively simple method of explaining, in very general terms, why people do what they do, and respond they way they do. In its own way, it is a "pep talk" for those in the law enforcement community. I believe anyone reading more into it than that does so at their own risk. To extrapolate that, based upon this analogy someone who sees in themselves the "hero" archetype may do "necessary evil" in order to render justice is a reach. If Grossman's analogy sends someone over that edge, they were teetering to begin with.
> 
> I don't know of anyone in the law enforcement community who will assert that those within the larger community "can do no wrong." IF I ever meet that person, I will take everything else they say with a grain of salt.
> 
> As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an analogy is just an analogy.


 
As I said I want to take this away from Grossman's "pep talk" to other examples of archetypes and their influences. As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself... 

As for "anyone reading more into it" well thats the purpose of an analogy; its intended to inspire and create a visual narative within the individuals mind. There is always risk of an individual expanding it as such within their own mind and carrying that archetype to whatever level they wish. It goes beyond simply Grossman & can even be applied to Martial Arts as well...

Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...





MJS said:


> While Grossman may have been gearing this 'idea' to a certain group of people, I still feel that the average person can take advantage of what it is he's trying to say. Regardless of whatever laws are in place, I dont think there is any law about being confident and showing it.
> 
> As far as the law goes....personally, I'm not overly worried about that. I've already addressed my thoughts on Sd, so no sense in rehashing it again.


 
Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation. Getting away from Grossman for example; as martial artists we see the same "role playing" within the MA community. In fact its extremely common in the Martial Arts were a accountant may see himself as a warrior because he studies warrior tradition-x of ryu-ha-y passdown from soke-z & thus never having been in a fight since grade school feels he is a "warrior." Yet the only blood he spills comes from his own hand when he get a paper cut. I'm not knocking on accountants but we've all seen or heard of instructors taking the idea of budo to cult-like levels.

We all see the "worlds deadliest art" adds that people fall for  or guys like Captain Chris who project a specific image into the persons head. Take your average joe; being fed these delusions of grandeur, sure its great to have the confidence to walk down the street at night and not be afraid of an attacker. However, thats the positive and that also means there is a negative to it as well; such as being too confident.

Another sad example is the "street fighter" archetype, there is a positive to it that being a focus on effective techniques but there is also a negative that many times an altercation can be defused or avoided without the use of those "effective techniques." Focusing on the positive leads to constant altercations & too much on the negative goes toward being inactive. So there is a need to balance the two realisticly; tread the middle path I guess you'd say.


----------



## punisher73

Draven said:


> As I said I want to take this away from Grossman's "pep talk" to other examples of archetypes and their influences. As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself...
> 
> As for "anyone reading more into it" well thats the purpose of an analogy; its intended to inspire and create a visual narative within the individuals mind. There is always risk of an individual expanding it as such within their own mind and carrying that archetype to whatever level they wish. It goes beyond simply Grossman & can even be applied to Martial Arts as well...
> 
> Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation. Getting away from Grossman for example; as martial artists we see the same "role playing" within the MA community. In fact its extremely common in the Martial Arts were a accountant may see himself as a warrior because he studies warrior tradition-x of ryu-ha-y passdown from soke-z & thus never having been in a fight since grade school feels he is a "warrior." Yet the only blood he spills comes from his own hand when he get a paper cut. I'm not knocking on accountants but we've all seen or heard of instructors taking the idea of budo to cult-like levels.
> 
> We all see the "worlds deadliest art" adds that people fall for or guys like Captain Chris who project a specific image into the persons head. Take your average joe; being fed these delusions of grandeur, sure its great to have the confidence to walk down the street at night and not be afraid of an attacker. However, thats the positive and that also means there is a negative to it as well; such as being too confident.
> 
> Another sad example is the "street fighter" archetype, there is a positive to it that being a focus on effective techniques but there is also a negative that many times an altercation can be defused or avoided without the use of those "effective techniques." Focusing on the positive leads to constant altercations & too much on the negative goes toward being inactive. So there is a need to balance the two realisticly; tread the middle path I guess you'd say.


 
As to Jungian archetypes, I think Grossman was going for an ANALOGY, and it wasn't meant to be taken and dissected so much.  If you find the analogy useful then so be it.  But, you are projecting into it your own bias and using it as a platform to expound on that.

In your last post you seem more to be arguing yin/yang.  No one has said that their isn't a positive and a negative to things, that wasn't the point of Grossman's article.  If you didn't want to focus on that then you shouldn't have brought it into the discussion as it relates to misapplied archetypes.


----------



## MJS

Draven said:


> Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation. Getting away from Grossman for example; as martial artists we see the same "role playing" within the MA community. In fact its extremely common in the Martial Arts were a accountant may see himself as a warrior because he studies warrior tradition-x of ryu-ha-y passdown from soke-z & thus never having been in a fight since grade school feels he is a "warrior." Yet the only blood he spills comes from his own hand when he get a paper cut. I'm not knocking on accountants but we've all seen or heard of instructors taking the idea of budo to cult-like levels.
> 
> We all see the "worlds deadliest art" adds that people fall for or guys like Captain Chris who project a specific image into the persons head. Take your average joe; being fed these delusions of grandeur, sure its great to have the confidence to walk down the street at night and not be afraid of an attacker. However, thats the positive and that also means there is a negative to it as well; such as being too confident.
> 
> Another sad example is the "street fighter" archetype, there is a positive to it that being a focus on effective techniques but there is also a negative that many times an altercation can be defused or avoided without the use of those "effective techniques." Focusing on the positive leads to constant altercations & too much on the negative goes toward being inactive. So there is a need to balance the two realisticly; tread the middle path I guess you'd say.


 
To each his own.  You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.   Now, I do agree with part of what you said...the fact that there're less that reliable folks out there, who, how shall I say it....like to BS unsuspecting people into actually believing that they're learning from someone legit.  I mean, pick up an martial arts magazine, and you'll see it.  That is why I also tell people to do their homework before giving someone their hard earned cash.

Of course, there've been folks like that who come on here, but they usually dont last long.  They come on, preaching some new invention, but in reality, its nothing new, but something old, simply repackaged.  Those folks usually pack up shop and move elsewhere, especially when they start to get too many questions asked of them.

However, back to this topic...IMHO, the mindset is very important.  Now, there are differences between being a wimp, being confident, and being over confident/cocky.  Carrying yourself with confidence is key.  Think about how a LEO or Corrections Officer acts, or should act.  These people are dealing with anyone ranging from the avg. Joe, to total scumbag killers.  If those types of people pick up the slightest bit of non confidence, the bad guy already owns them.  We could watch the nature channel and see the same thing...weaker animals and stronger ones.  They're always establishing who is the top dog, so to speak.

How does this relate here?  Well, I dont think I really need to tell you do I?  Oh ok, I will. LOL!  If you're always walking with that confidence about you, chances are, you'll be less likely to be a victim.  The badguy sees person a, chatting away on their cell, not paying attention to whats going on around them, etc, vs. person b, who just by simply body actions, lets it be known that they're aware, well, who do you think the victim will most likely be?

This isn't something that people can gain from a book.  There're no magic secrets.  A good portion of it is common sense, and anyone teaching SD should make it a point to instill this in all of their students from day 1.


----------



## DocWard

Draven said:


> As I said I want to take this away from Grossman's "pep talk" to other examples of archetypes and their influences.



I must have missed that statement. Based upon your writings thus far, it seems that your desire is to disparage instead.



> As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself...



Your prior statement was "You see a) Laws are determined by the courts & not by LEOs..." By so stating, along with the above, you have gotten into the realm of misconceptions and over-simplification. Ironic, considering this is what you accuse Grossman of. Since we are discussing law enforcement here, I will limit myself to criminal law. Laws, that is, statutes, are written by portions of the legislature (a committee), proposed for adoption (as a bill) approved by the legislature (via voting) and sent to the executive for approval as law (let's say the governor, since those are the laws most of us deal with on a normal basis). Now, at the trial level, courts do not interpret laws, they apply them. Particularly in criminal laws there is little leeway for "determining how to apply" these laws. Either a defendant is found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed all of the elements of an offense and determined to be guilty, or not. To use an analogy (!), it is almost like using an algorithm. If the trier of fact finds A to be true, they then move to B, then to C, and so on.

Trial courts do have some discretion in sentencing, but again, that discretion is put forth in sentencing statutes, which limit to a great extent what the trial court can do. For example, in the State of Ohio, a defendant cannot be sentenced to more than 18 months incarceration for a fourth degree felony.

As for laws being invalidated, that can and sometime does happen at the appellate level, but this seldom occurs, particularly at the appellate level. Typically, if an appellate court invalidates a specific statute as being contrary to a state or the U.S. Constitution, it typically eventually goes on to either state Supreme Courts, or the U.S. Supreme Court (very atypical). Then, if the ruling is upheld, the legislature goes back to the drawing board to make laws that are compliant with the relevant constitution.

More often, we see appellate courts finding error in what a trial court did, that is, procedural error, that denied a defendant a fair trial. Case law at both state and federal levels make clear that a trial court's decision is to be given the utmost discretion. So, no, in the context of criminal law, courts don't generally take an active role in "determining law." When they do, it is typically the province of the legislature to correct deficiencies.



> As for "anyone reading more into it" well thats the purpose of an analogy; its intended to inspire and create a visual narative within the individuals mind. There is always risk of an individual expanding it as such within their own mind and carrying that archetype to whatever level they wish. It goes beyond simply Grossman & can even be applied to Martial Arts as well...



Even here you are on shaky ground. An analogy is defined as "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification." Yes, when put forth as metaphor, or more precisely, as parable, they can be inspirational as well as useful in instruction. Again, though, the best analogies and parables work well because they simplify concepts and make them more easily understood.



> Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...



While I agree with you on this point, I also find that most people tend to take things at face value. My experience is that this is typically because they take the message that is immediately apparent to them and don't look further. Sometimes this can be attributed to them being either disinterested or more negatively, intellectually lazy.



> Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation.



To reiterate, I believe the purpose of the message is to be simple, to be easily comprehended and retained. Given the audience, I also see a benefit. It is, for lack of a better word, comforting, to know someone can put into very simple words why I do what I do. I have spent twenty years in the military because I recognize in myself a capacity for violence when necessary. I also have an innate sense of empathy, as shown by both my MOS (medic) and my civilian occupation, as an assistant prosecuting attorney, doing child abuse cases for the over a decade, and now doing the domestic violence docket. In the latter capacity, I have seen those with a strong capacity for violence without any true empathy for their fellow man. I know of those who are "villains" with no compulsion about admitting it and making no excuses for it.

I don't consider myself the most enlightened or introspective person, but the message, at face value, makes sense to me.


----------



## Archangel M

> Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...


 
Im sure. :shrug:


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> Im sure. :shrug:


 
Dang. Not even Phil...? 

[yt]JEH59SV0njU[/yt]


----------



## Draven

MJS said:


> To each his own. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.  Now, I do agree with part of what you said...the fact that there're less that reliable folks out there, who, how shall I say it....like to BS unsuspecting people into actually believing that they're learning from someone legit. I mean, pick up an martial arts magazine, and you'll see it. That is why I also tell people to do their homework before giving someone their hard earned cash.


 
Its rampant in MA and goes beyond just fraudulant instructors; I had an interested discussion with an Army buddy of mine whos heavily involved in police tactics & BJJ. We were discussing self-defense; now bear in mind I see self-defense as being the on the receiving end of a criminal assault. Then all of a sudden because I said I wasn't impressed with BJJ, because I have seen much the same techniques in Judo & Sport Jujitsu. He looks at me and says "Oh if someone really wants to hurt you they'll take you to the ground." My reply was "If someone wants to hurt me they'll use a weapon..."

Now the difference in how we each see each ourselves is clear; he sees himself as a "BJJ practicer" & see myself as "streetfighter." The difference is I embrace the negative side; that many of the techniques which are effective will not be needed in many altercations, where as he focuses on the positive that "hes a good groundfighter and that most_ fights_ go to the ground..." He avoid the negative that in most criminal assaults, muggings, beatings, car jackings etc. the "_fights_" never go to the ground because they usually involve more then one assailant, ambush tactics or a weapon of some kind.



MJS said:


> Of course, there've been folks like that who come on here, but they usually dont last long. They come on, preaching some new invention, but in reality, its nothing new, but something old, simply repackaged. Those folks usually pack up shop and move elsewhere, especially when they start to get too many questions asked of them.


 
Thats with anything, we're in a business and that means that many times people advertise only the positive and avoid the negative...



MJS said:


> However, back to this topic...IMHO, the mindset is very important. Now, there are differences between being a wimp, being confident, and being over confident/cocky. Carrying yourself with confidence is key. Think about how a LEO or Corrections Officer acts, or should act. These people are dealing with anyone ranging from the avg. Joe, to total scumbag killers. If those types of people pick up the slightest bit of non confidence, the bad guy already owns them. We could watch the nature channel and see the same thing...weaker animals and stronger ones. They're always establishing who is the top dog, so to speak.


 
Problem is human's are thinking animals & well the posturing that comes with trying to be confident is a sign of weakness. LEOs, COs and even the military have this same problem; experience is the issue & embracing a psychological archetype to "create confidence" isn't always smart. I've seen many a "private" get his butt handed to him by the Average Joe because he let someone telling him "hes a killer" influence him into thinking hes a tough guy because he was trained or has a uniform. You see the same thing in other groups such as gangs; the less experienced are apt to believe they are "something special" because they belong to a gang. As already stated before we see this with MAs & MA orgs as well...



MJS said:


> How does this relate here? Well, I dont think I really need to tell you do I? Oh ok, I will. LOL! If you're always walking with that confidence about you, chances are, you'll be less likely to be a victim. The badguy sees person a, chatting away on their cell, not paying attention to whats going on around them, etc, vs. person b, who just by simply body actions, lets it be known that they're aware, well, who do you think the victim will most likely be?
> 
> This isn't something that people can gain from a book. There're no magic secrets. A good portion of it is common sense, and anyone teaching SD should make it a point to instill this in all of their students from day 1.


 
I understand what you're saying & have understood it, I just think you're focusing too much on the confidence angle; In the example you state the "victim a" was confident but unaware. Unaware and being confident are two different things, you are more likely to be aware when your unconfident (I'll even say scared) because your adrinoline is already pumping...

However, confidence is only one of many factors & as you pointed out possibly being confident but unaware is equally as dangerious. As for "magic secrets" sure there are "magic secrets" & thats the trick; people are always looking for deeper meaning (just like I did with Grossman's "pep talk") its human nature. The magic secret is that there is no magic secret but that doesn't stop people from looking for one or justifying their  path to look for one.


----------



## MJS

Draven said:


> Its rampant in MA and goes beyond just fraudulant instructors; I had an interested discussion with an Army buddy of mine whos heavily involved in police tactics & BJJ. We were discussing self-defense; now bear in mind I see self-defense as being the on the receiving end of a criminal assault. Then all of a sudden because I said I wasn't impressed with BJJ, because I have seen much the same techniques in Judo & Sport Jujitsu. He looks at me and says "Oh if someone really wants to hurt you they'll take you to the ground." My reply was "If someone wants to hurt me they'll use a weapon..."
> 
> Now the difference in how we each see each ourselves is clear; he sees himself as a "BJJ practicer" & see myself as "streetfighter." The difference is I embrace the negative side; that many of the techniques which are effective will not be needed in many altercations, where as he focuses on the positive that "hes a good groundfighter and that most_ fights_ go to the ground..." He avoid the negative that in most criminal assaults, muggings, beatings, car jackings etc. the "_fights_" never go to the ground because they usually involve more then one assailant, ambush tactics or a weapon of some kind.


 
Well, IMO, I think alot of people will be influenced by what surrounds them.  For example...a student of the Gracies will most likely run around preaching the 'all fights go to the ground 99% of the time" speech, because thats what they're brought up on.  People who dont know any better, will fall victim to the fakes and frauds in the MA world, and think that because Dr. X, who has a full page add in BB magazine, said it, then it must be true.  





> Thats with anything, we're in a business and that means that many times people advertise only the positive and avoid the negative...


 
You're right.  How many times have we seen a product come out, and shortly there after, 3 similar products, just with a different name, usually cheaper, come out?  Happens all the time.  But, much like those that come on here, trying to pass their stuff off as something new, in reality, its not new, but something based on an already existing idea.  Of course, they take their toys and run away to their rooms, when those who know better, dont fall for their line of BS.





> Problem is human's are thinking animals & well the posturing that comes with trying to be confident is a sign of weakness. LEOs, COs and even the military have this same problem; experience is the issue & embracing a psychological archetype to "create confidence" isn't always smart. I've seen many a "private" get his butt handed to him by the Average Joe because he let someone telling him "hes a killer" influence him into thinking hes a tough guy because he was trained or has a uniform. You see the same thing in other groups such as gangs; the less experienced are apt to believe they are "something special" because they belong to a gang. As already stated before we see this with MAs & MA orgs as well...


 
You're preaching to the choir bro.    I've said many many times, that the martial arts dont make us Supermen and Superwomen, yet how many people do we see that actually think that?  When I was a CO, and was walking around the dorms, filled with 120 inmates, and just me and another CO, sure, I was nervous.  I'd be lying to you if I said otherwise.  But I didn't show it.  I didn't walk with my head down, I spoke kindly but firm, with the inmates.  They're not stupid.  They would watch to see who was working that day.  If they saw someone that they knew was weak, they'd be running that place all day long.  Yet, when they saw someone who they knew didn't put up with any BS, it was a very different atmosphere.  





> I understand what you're saying & have understood it, I just think you're focusing too much on the confidence angle; In the example you state the "victim a" was confident but unaware. Unaware and being confident are two different things, you are more likely to be aware when your unconfident (I'll even say scared) because your adrinoline is already pumping...
> 
> However, confidence is only one of many factors & as you pointed out possibly being confident but unaware is equally as dangerious. As for "magic secrets" sure there are "magic secrets" & thats the trick; people are always looking for deeper meaning (just like I did with Grossman's "pep talk") its human nature. The magic secret is that there is no magic secret but that doesn't stop people from looking for one or justifying their path to look for one.


 
Actually, I think you may've misunderstood part of what I was saying.  Person A is unaware, not confident.  They're lost in their phone chat, fumbling in their purse to get their car keys, not paying attention to whats going on around them.  Person B is aware and confident.  They're not paranoid, meaning looking over their shoulder every 2secs., but they know whats going on. 

Today for example, while in the grocery store with my wife.  We walked right behind a woman, who was busy looking over some vegtables, yet her purse was in the cart, wide open.  It would have been nothing for someone to grab something or the entire purse and keep right on walking.


----------



## teekin

The Last Legionary said:


> I love when pseudo-intellectuals pop in and pontificate on a subject yet can't work a spellcheck. It shoots their shoe boxing in the foot.


 
SweetPea, 
 I stopped reading when he messed up on "Id". I figured it would be all downhill from there. Seems I was right. Ohhh well. Could be a good topic.

Lori


----------

