Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence

[hoshin1600]

The following is a segment of a theory i am working on. these are more like notes then a working thesis. as a martial arts community we seem to go round in circles about fighting and self defense. i am looking for some input and ideas on my thoughts. where are the holes? the overall theory is not about fighting VS self defense but it may help define some concepts. think of this as a crowd/ open source theory experiment.



“Primal hierarchy”
Originally as a species we used the same dominance hierarchy as other primates, based on violence.

“Modern hierarchy”
As we evolved and society modernized we developed a new hierarchy based on a value system.

We are born with an intuitive knowledge of the primal hierarchy it is encoded within our DNA. Modern hierarchy however is a learned behavior (at least for the present).

Everyday society functions with these two models working in tandem, overlapping and weaving in and out of each other.


Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia

Dominance Hierarchies

When certain individuals and groups fail to succeed at the value based hierarchy they will revert back to the violence based model. Individuals under emotional stress may also revert back to the violence model.

All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.

Criminals function under this model. This means their values, morals and sense of right and wrong are different than the rest of society. Criminals have a hard time functioning on the outside of prison. They do not know how to succeed in the value based model. They say they find the outside world scary. Prison reinforces the Primal hierarchy through like minded groupings.

Abject poverty does not create crime. Relative poverty does. The Individual becomes aware of his low social position within the hierarchy.

Human behavior is influenced by the dominance hierarchy. When these behaviors are expressed in a negative way we call that a Volatile interaction.

Volatile Interaction
When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence.


Using chemical definitions, we can say bodies that are subject to initiate violence (i.e. are functioning within the Primal model) are “unstable”. Bodies that are unlikely to initiate violence (functioning under the modern model) are a catalyst.

A volatile interaction does not always lead to a combative event. this is where de-escalation works.

When two bodies that are “unstable” interact this interaction is called a Dominance exchange.

When one body is “unstable” and the other is a “catalyst” we call this an Assault.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.

Here's my first question - in the terms of your hierarchy theory, what is inherently different about male-initiated violence, versus female-initiated violence.

 

[Flying Crane]

I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do. Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate. I do not believe that is accurate.

Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law. Not all are career. Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity. Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.

I think your description there is overly simplified. Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that.

 

[hoshin1600]

Here's my first question - in the terms of your hierarchy theory, what is inherently different about male-initiated violence, versus female-initiated violence.

really good question. something that i will have to look more into to be honest. but the dominance hierarchy has a presupposition that it is the male who typically "climbs" the ladder and that the female is a moderator of the hierarchy. that at least is the classical version. i am trying to apply this to violence so i havnt worked out the female side yet.

 

[hoshin1600]

I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do. Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate. I do not believe that is accurate.

Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law. Not all are career. Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity. Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.

I think your description there is overly simplified. Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that.

something for me to think about , thanks.. but i am not trying to describe criminal activity i am only interested in interpersonal violence.

 

[hoshin1600]

it is known that females actually commit more interpersonal violence then the men in relationships. but it is the men that have the strength disparity to do more damage so you usually only see stats on men on women violence.

 

[Flying Crane]

really good question. something that i will have to look more into to be honest. but the dominance hierarchy has a presupposition that it is the male who typically "climbs" the ladder and that the female is a moderator of the hierarchy. that at least is the classical version. i am trying to apply this to violence so i havnt worked out the female side yet.

Fair enough. I was responding to statement of criminals having a hard time operating outside of prison, operating under certain rules,etc. since it was part of your statements I felt it was worth commenting on.

 

[hoshin1600]

I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do. Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate. I do not believe that is accurate.

while my post may note express it fully. this is not something new and experts do in fact describe criminals this way.

edit: we posted at the same time.. you may be correct about post - prison behavior. again it is just a theory.

 

[marques]

“Primal hierarchy”
Originally as a species we used the same dominance hierarchy as other primates, based on violence.

“Modern hierarchy”
As we evolved and society modernized we developed a new hierarchy based on a value system.

First thoughts:

We still use primal hierarchy. More clearly among young males. Among adults, we may not see physical violence as often (happily) but still there is fear and different forms of punishment.

I see the modern hierarchy based on power. Where are the values these days? Empty words... (if the value is not money or power). People with power keep inferiors quiet or delete them. Simple.

People respect more the ones they fear than the ones they love. (Nicolau?)

 

[hoshin1600]

First thoughts:

We still use primal hierarchy. More clearly among young males. Among adults, we may not see physical violence as often (happily) but still there is fear and different forms of punishment.

I see the modern hierarchy based on power. Where are the values these days? Empty words... (if the value is not money or power). People with power keep inferiors quiet or delete them. Simple.

People respect more the ones they fear than the ones they love. (Nicolau?)

good observations. modern hierarchy based on power sounds correct. but i think they are both based on power. the difference is what constitutes the power? in the primal model it is physical presence and strenght in the modern model it is money and social structure.

 

[lklawson]

The following is a segment of a theory i am working on. these are more like notes then a working thesis. as a martial arts community we seem to go round in circles about fighting and self defense. i am looking for some input and ideas on my thoughts. where are the holes? the overall theory is not about fighting VS self defense but it may help define some concepts. think of this as a crowd/ open source theory experiment.



“Primal hierarchy”
Originally as a species we used the same dominance hierarchy as other primates, based on violence.

“Modern hierarchy”
As we evolved and society modernized we developed a new hierarchy based on a value system.

We are born with an intuitive knowledge of the primal hierarchy it is encoded within our DNA. Modern hierarchy however is a learned behavior (at least for the present).

Everyday society functions with these two models working in tandem, overlapping and weaving in and out of each other.


Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia

Dominance Hierarchies

When certain individuals and groups fail to succeed at the value based hierarchy they will revert back to the violence based model. Individuals under emotional stress may also revert back to the violence model.

All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.

Criminals function under this model. This means their values, morals and sense of right and wrong are different than the rest of society. Criminals have a hard time functioning on the outside of prison. They do not know how to succeed in the value based model. They say they find the outside world scary. Prison reinforces the Primal hierarchy through like minded groupings.

Abject poverty does not create crime. Relative poverty does. The Individual becomes aware of his low social position within the hierarchy.

Human behavior is influenced by the dominance hierarchy. When these behaviors are expressed in a negative way we call that a Volatile interaction.

Volatile Interaction
When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence.


Using chemical definitions, we can say bodies that are subject to initiate violence (i.e. are functioning within the Primal model) are “unstable”. Bodies that are unlikely to initiate violence (functioning under the modern model) are a catalyst.

A volatile interaction does not always lead to a combative event. this is where de-escalation works.

When two bodies that are “unstable” interact this interaction is called a Dominance exchange.

When one body is “unstable” and the other is a “catalyst” we call this an Assault.

Nearly all interaction between humans, particularly males, is tinged with Dominance. It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless. Dominance is often expressed in any way in which one participant can place himself above the other. This ranges from IQ, income, political office (including social clubs) and any skill which can be expressed as a "sport" such as pool, boxing, or clog-dancing. It's all ways to express Dominance.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[hoshin1600]

Nearly all interaction between humans, particularly males, is tinged with Dominance. It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless. Dominance is often expressed in any way in which one participant can place himself above the other. This ranges from IQ, income, political office (including social clubs) and any skill which can be expressed as a "sport" such as pool, boxing, or clog-dancing. It's all ways to express Dominance.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

part of my thinking is that among certain socio economic groups the modern hierarchy seems to lose its influence and the primal model continues to exist. i have more money gets trumped by "oh yeah well F U and im gonna take it away from you" and it happens in a violent manner to prove the point that im more dominant that you.

 

[marques]

modern hierarchy based on power sounds correct. but i think they are both based on power. the difference is what constitutes the power? in the primal model it is physical presence and strenght in the modern model it is money and social structure.

Well, initially one could hurt a few people (enemies) and lead another bunch of people (towards food and better survival chance?).

These days one can lead countries with millions of people or multinational companies and "hurt" competitors. Just a different scale. I still don't see much difference.

We join the companies we think are better for our survival (or quality of life) and we vote in politicians we think are better for our survival (or quality of life). We give them power.

Leaders are still doing what is better to keep their own leadership (and it may include giving some perks to the inferiors ). Honestly, I don't think we evolved that much. Things look different nowadays, and are different but just to some (short) extent...

 

[hoshin1600]

Well, initially one could hurt a few people (enemies) and lead another bunch of people (towards food and better survival chance?).

These days one can lead countries with millions of people or multinational companies and "hurt" competitors. Just a different scale. I still don't see much difference.

We join the companies we think are better for our survival (or quality of life) and we vote in politicians we think are better for our survival (or quality of life). We give them power.

Leaders are still doing what is better to keep their own leadership (and it may include giving some perks to the inferiors ). Honestly, I don't think we evolved that much. Things look different nowadays, and are different but just to some (short) extent...

i cant disagree with you. but typically a dominance hierarchy does not revolve around leading people as much as mating rights with a female and the social structure that evolves around the perpetuation of the species.

 

[Flying Crane]

while my post may note express it fully. this is not something new and experts do in fact describe criminals this way.

edit: we posted at the same time.. you may be correct about post - prison behavior. again it is just a theory.

If experts do in fact describe it in this way, then I’m guessing there must be more to the story. Perhaps it is a certain subset of hardened, repeat violent criminals who spend a large portion of their life behind bars, and may be frequently in and out of prison for largely violent behavior.

I contrast this with someone guilty of insider trading who was otherwise a good husband, good father, and member of his local Big Brothers program, or even someone guilty and serving time for a violent crime committed in the passion of the moment, who had no other violent history and had, up until then, been leading a positive and productive life in his community.

These are not all the same people, as criminals.

 

[Anarax]

Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law

In the US the recidivism rate for state prisoners is 77%

Not all are career

Yes, not all

Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity.

What are you basing this on? Even if that's true that means the circumstances can never present themselves again for them to be functional in society.

Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.

Is there information/evidence verifying this?

 

[Flying Crane]

In the US the recidivism rate for state prisoners is 77%

Yes, not all

What are you basing this on? Even if that's true that means the circumstances can never present themselves again for them to be functional in society.

Is there information/evidence verifying this?

Read my follow-up post,#15.

 

[jobo]

If experts do in fact describe it in this way, then I’m guessing there must be more to the story. Perhaps it is a certain subset of hardened, repeat violent criminals who spend a large portion of their life behind bars, and may be frequently in and out of prison for largely violent behavior.

I contrast this with someone guilty of insider trading who was otherwise a good husband, good father, and member of his local Big Brothers program, or even someone guilty and serving time for a violent crime committed in the passion of the moment, who had no other violent history and had, up until then, been leading a positive and productive life in his community.

These are not all the same people, as criminals.

i can't see the distinction, there are two types of criminal, those who get caught and those who don't, or have good laywers or are married to an ex president .

people taking home pads and pens from work or dropping litter or what ever are just as much criminals as those others you refers to.

 

[Anarax]

Read my follow-up post,#15.

I didn't see anything in your post that really answered any of my questions. You're speculating and giving hypothetical examples of types of people.

FYI, insider trading would fall under federal not state law, and first time offenders will most likely be given probation.

Do you have any evidence supporting your statements?

 

[Anarax]

i can't see the distinction, there are two types of criminal, those who get caught and those who don't, or have good laywers or are married to an ex president .

people taking home pads and pens from work or dropping litter or what ever are just as much criminals as those others you refers to.

I agree with most of what you're saying. There is a gradient of crime severity, but I don't think how noble you are as a person should have anything to do with it. Even if you robbed someone so you could feed yourself, it's still a crime. It doesn't make your actions any more noble. You aren't imprisoned for who you are, but for what you've done.