Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence

[jobo]

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.

not my point, rather that some people escape justice as they have money or influence or just don't get caught stealing pens from work or speeding, what severity society places on a crime, doesn't stop it from being a crime and you a criminal.

i see people who sneer , look down at muggers but break the speed limit as hypocrisy

 

[hoshin1600]

i dont want to stifle the comments but the OP post is about violence not crime. there is a difference.
the thread is about a dominance hierarchy and how it applies to the psychology of violent behavior patterns.

 

[Flying Crane]

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?

I am talking about who is a criminal. Do you understand that there are different types, all of which can end up in prison at some point?

Do you understand that even those who have a criminal background don’t genetally live every aspect of their lives as a criminal? That they can have positive family relationships, successful careers, etc. it depends on the person and on the level and frequency of criminal behavior that they have committed, of course. But every person with a criminal background, even those who have served time (regardless of whether it was State or Federal), does not suddenly become unable to cope with life outside of prison. As with most things in life, it depends on many factors.

This is pretty self-evident and should not need a peer-reviewed research article to support it.

 

[Flying Crane]

i dont want to stifle the comments but the OP post is about violence not crime. there is a difference.
the thread is about a dominance hierarchy and how it applies to the psychology of violent behavior patterns.

My apologies. I wasn’t going to pursue it, but it seems there is some confusion.

 

[hoshin1600]

if an individual walks into a store to "relieve it" of its money, that is a crime but if during that crime the store owner refuses to hand over the cash box then the criminal will resort to push his dominance over the owner to force the situation to his will.
the theft is a crime but then there was also a confrontation and assault over dominance.

 

[hoshin1600]

when we look at crime against women like rape we have a psychological understanding that the major contributing factor to rape is power and dominance. however what i am saying is that the same is true for other non sexual violence and between males.

 

[hoshin1600]

two guys in a bar. one bumps the other ones shoulder this creates a Volatile Interaction. now the victim (i use that word loosely) can talk his way out with de escalation, thus giving the assailant what he was really after (dominance) or he can also assert his own dominance. this, like i used the term before is where both parties are "unstable" and a combative event happens.
both parties are trying to assert dominance ...this is not allowed by law. they are both compliant in the act. when we apply the theory we see both parties are operating within the same Primal Dominance Hierarchy.

 

[Anarax]

I am talking about who is a criminal. Do you understand that there are different types, all of which can end up in prison at some point?

Do you understand that even those who have a criminal background don’t genetally live every aspect of their lives as a criminal? That they can have positive family relationships, successful careers, etc. it depends on the person and on the level and frequency of criminal behavior that they have committed, of course. But every person with a criminal background, even those who have served time (regardless of whether it was State or Federal), does not suddenly become unable to cope with life outside of prison. As with most things in life, it depends on many factors.

This is pretty self-evident and should not need a peer-reviewed research article to support it.

When we are talking about criminology, which is a science, then yes you should be able to find information backing up your positions.

You use terms like "perhaps" and "guessing", which is speculation. All I asked was for evidence supporting your opinions. Polls, research, statistics and yes peer reviewed articles are all valid sources.

 

[Flying Crane]

When we are talking about criminology, which is a science, then yes you should be able to find information backing up your positions.

You use terms like "perhaps" and "guessing", which is speculation. All I asked was for evidence supporting your opinions. Polls, research, statistics and yes peer reviewed articles are all valid sources.

I have reviewed the OP and there is, so far, zero criminology in this thread. Some statements were made without citation, the target population under discussion was not clearly defined.

Essentially, when it comes right down to it, I am pointing out that for any of those earlier statements to have any meaning, the subject population needs to be much more specifically defined because otherwise the statements are far too broad and the definition of “criminal” can have far too much ambiguity, and right off the top of my head in about five seconds of non-rigorous thought I was able to come up with several exceptions to the statements made.

Now, Hoshin has stated that the whole criminal bit isn’t really what he is interested in so I for one am willing to not further divert the topic. If you want to debate this further I would be happy to, but please open a new thread to do so. Feel free to link Hoshin’s OP to the new thread if you do so, since the debate is based on what he said in that post.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

Be prepared to read a lot of books from reliable sources in regards to human behavior, criminal psychology, Society behavior, Society customs and their impact on laws, mental disorders, and a tons of other books to try and piece together something. Without it, you'll constantly run into problems where notes and assumptions crumble.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that

And this is an example of understatement. This is one of those multiple expert input matters where everyone has a piece of the puzzle.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless.

I agree with this. The term violence is almost always used in a negative context which is not accurate of what violence really is. It is almost always seen as something bad which is also not correct about the reality of violence.

It will probably be better to use the word aggression and then categorized levels of aggression when speaking of dominance. Posturing can be a product of dominance but it's doesn't have to be violent or even noticeable. A simple gaze (like a mother's gaze) would be an example.

 

[JowGaWolf]

the whole criminal bit isn’t really what he is interested in

I'm not sure if this is possible. An action is only criminal if it's against the rules of society. In some societies it's legal and considered a right for a man to beat his wife if he see's fit. So while it's not a crime in that society, the behavior or the mentality of the action may still be the same in a society where it's a crime.

I do agree with you that this definitely needs to be narrowed down greatly.

 

[Juany118]

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

That has actually been studied. As an example, in cases of deadly force, when the victim is not a child (under 15 years), the female most typically attacks an intimate partner, a knife is typically used and the victim is typically under the influence of some sort of intoxicant. Previous violence against the female by the "victim" is also typical and it usually occurs within the home. In terms of when the victims are children the primary differences are first in method; women will typically use asphyxiation where men will use a deadly weapon, also the women will typically have fewer sentences for previous criminal activity.

In terms of overall violent acts men commit far more violence but that said not all sociologists agree that evolution is the reason. As an example some sociologists believe that the difference lies in the gap of social equality between the sexes and that violent crime would be nearly equal between the sexes if social status was equal.

There is also on-going research in terms of the effect of toxic masculinity, especially as it relates to people of color growing up in poverty, not only in terms of violent crime but what some term the "school to prison pipe line" where, in essence, the youth sees only two paths forward in life;

1. athletic achievement which provides a scholarship BUT the education is not the "end". You are either good enough to have a chance at "the pros" or you don't take it.
2. the street, which all to often leads to a life of criminality and violence.

The above dynamic being caused by an attitude that undervalues education due to toxic attitudes of what is "masculine."

(can you tell my girlfriend is a dual diagnosis counselor with a social justice focus hunting for a PHD? lol )

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure if this is possible. An action is only criminal if it's against the rules of society. In some societies it's legal and considered a right for a man to beat his wife if he see's fit. So while it's not a crime in that society, the behavior or the mentality of the action may still be the same in a society where it's a crime.

I do agree with you that this definitely needs to be narrowed down greatly.

Is the mentality the same? See that would be interesting. I mean we consider beating women as unacceptable but would drinking for example as acceptable.

And we can find cultures where the reverse is true.

 

[Juany118]

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.

You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status. Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.

 

[Flying Crane]

You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status. Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.

While I agree that institutionalized racism is very real and can have very real effects on a community as a whole, that actually has nothing to do with the point I was making.

A particular population needs to be identified and defined as the one being studied. And it was not. No population was defined, other than an overly broad “criminal” and their ability to function outside of prison.

Even within a population marginalized and subjected to institutionalized racism, those who may engage in criminal activities can also have other positive attributes: positive family relationships, successful jobs, positive and non-criminal relationships within the community.

We cannot simplistically identify someone as a criminal and then ignore the other aspects of their lives. Nobody is 100% criminal, all the time. As such, we cannot make blanket statements about criminals ability or lack thereof to function outside of prison. One person convicted of criminal behavior is not automatically the same as the next.

That is my point.

 

[Juany118]

While I agree that institutionalized racism is very real and can have very real effects on a community as a whole, that actually has nothingness to do with the point I was making.

A particular population needs to be identified and defined as the one being studied. And it was not. No population was defined, other than an overly broad “criminal” and their ability to function outside of prison.

Even within a population marginalized and subjected to institutionalized racism, those who may engage in criminal activities can also have other positive attributes: positive family relationships, successful jobs, positive and non-criminal relationships within the community.

We cannot simplistically identify someone as a criminal and then ignore the other aspects of their lives. Nobody is 100% criminal, all the time. As such, we cannot make blanket statements about criminals ability or lack thereof to function outside of prison. One person convicted of criminal behavior is not automatically the same as the next.

Well the OP may have gotten lucky, or simply not adequately described exist and on going quantitative research by people like this...
Dr. Christopher Liang | Lehigh Education

But the data is there and it's compelling enough that people like Dr. Liang are doing research in how to break the cycle that exists in these communities. /Shrug. My girlfriend as part of her Master's program was actually "let off the leash" so to speak to run a program that is part of his study in a largely minority middle School in an poor/underperforming school district.

Note I am not saying we identify those kids as criminal, but the circumstances they live in put them at MUCH higher risk. My point is to say to simply give them the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best is not an option. We need to acknowledge the higher risk and engage in preemptive interventions. Figuring out best practices via quantitative research is a large part of Dr. Liang's study.

 

[Martial D]

This thread, while well intentioned, is useless in it's current form. As has been mentioned, 'criminality' is an arbitrary thing, as what constitutes a crime varies from place to place. If you follow every rule laid out in any given place simply because someone decided one day it shouldn't be allowed, rather than because you believe it is wrong, you have already been 'dominated', regardless of any other standard.

IE some crimes tie in, others do not.

As per the nature of interpersonal violence and dominance, I think much of the official line is also arbitrary. Psychology isn't real science, it's mostly backroom politics. The backbone of what constitutes flaws in human psychology, ie the DSM, isn't decided by science but rather by quorum.

 

[Juany118]

You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status. Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.

Might I ask what you disagree with... AFTER you read my follow up post which clarifies my position.