Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence

[Gerry Seymour]

I just read this to my girlfriend and she said "who wrote that, it was very insightful.". Lol

Tell her I agree with here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One of the problems with this is the nebulous definition of 'racism', which seems to be expanding year by year at about the same rate as the universe.

Agreed. The studies I refer to use a pretty simple approach - are people with distinctly different skin color (or, in at least one case, names) treated or perceived differently. There have been psychological and sociological approaches to studying this. While some are questionable (flawed studies, or overreaching conclusions), some create fairly clear results, and results that repeat in both rigorous and fairly casual studies (the latter being more numerous, because they are easier and less expensive, but are usually conducted by informed laity, rather than scientists).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unless I miss the point, the OP is putting forth what is currently mostly an intellectual experiment - an attempt to build a model that reasonably fits the way things work. It appears to be relatively early in the process, so it's probably not ready for picking at the details, but for challenging the concepts.

 

[hoshin1600]

yall, are making my brain hurt, lol ive been in heavy thought about this all day and my brain is tired. im probably going to make some nonsensical posts here that i will regret later. but i dont want to stop.

 

[hoshin1600]

Unless I miss the point, the OP is putting forth what is currently mostly an intellectual experiment - an attempt to build a model that reasonably fits the way things work. It appears to be relatively early in the process, so it's probably not ready for picking at the details, but for challenging the concepts.

Yup.

so the overall thought is that a lot of what we deal with as martial artists is undefined, often random and many times incorrect. i believe that if we develop a greater understanding of the violent interactions that we are supposed to be preparing ourself to defend against, that knowledge will enable better decisions about our training and the execution when needed.

 

[Juany118]

Tell her I agree with here.

On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud. Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc). His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.

On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work. Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed

 

[hoshin1600]

so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont. during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " i have more money and success" but the criminal will be dominant with " i'll kill you" . in a conflict "i"ll kill you" always wins. as civilized people our normal reactions always fail. the only answer to violence is greater violence. now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement. i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies. i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm. calling the police is not an option. compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that? you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent.
within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed. (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one) but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group, but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you. and you have to deal with it.

 

[hoshin1600]

On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud. Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc). His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.

On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work. Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed

but this is the nature of all endeavors. trial and error, with lots of error. which is the whole point in me thinking outloud (in type) here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.

well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud. Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc). His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.

On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work. Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed

And from a philosophical perspective, his model's terminology is still well-applied. While the structures of id/ego/superego don't seem to actually exist, the terms make useful shorthand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont. during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " i have more money and success" but the criminal will be dominant with " i'll kill you" . in a conflict "i"ll kill you" always wins. as civilized people our normal reactions always fail. the only answer to violence is greater violence. now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement. i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies. i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm. calling the police is not an option. compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that? you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent.
within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed. (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one) but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group, but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you. and you have to deal with it.

I'm going to complicate things for you, my friend. I believe (haven't any opportunity to test it) that people dominate based upon their personal motivators. If, for instance we used the Spranger/Allport list of values/motivators, I'm a "Theoretical", which means I thrive on digging into, understanding, and collecting conceptual information. And this is probably where I'm most likely to display dominance behavior (just look at the examples here on MT). The economic/utilitarian value is in the middle for me, so I'll respond to dominant behavior here, but am unlikely to initiate it. The traditional (originally "religious") value is very low for me, so dominance behavior here will either miss me, or I'll respond with information (back to theoretical).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but this is the nature of all endeavors. trial and error, with lots of error. which is the whole point in me thinking outloud (in type) here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.

well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.

Agreed. Unfortunately, some folks dismiss endeavors that start out wonky (like Psychology), because they started out wonky. Of course, Physics and Astronomy didn't start so well, either, but they've progressed a lot farther (with a much earlier start, IMO).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont. during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " i have more money and success" but the criminal will be dominant with " i'll kill you" . in a conflict "i"ll kill you" always wins. as civilized people our normal reactions always fail. the only answer to violence is greater violence. now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement. i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies. i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm. calling the police is not an option. compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that? you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent.
within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed. (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one) but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group, but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you. and you have to deal with it.

As a note, the use of the word "criminal" may be one of the more contentious issues in your model. Can you think of another, more objective/less inflammatory word to use? (This is why we have all the weird words used in Psychology and Sociology - to divorce the concept from existing connotations).

 

[Martial D]

Not really. They create a hypothesis. They use rigorous, randomized, double-blind studies to test the hypothesis. The theories and models to explain the outcomes are a bit wobbly, but that's to be expected with a field where direct manipulation isn't possible within the key population (humans).

If an experiment isn't replicable, it isn't really science as far as I am concerned. I see psychology as a pho-industry tailored to sell more and more products for big pharm. Sure, there are some interesting hypothesis, but nothing approaching hard science. Every edition of the DSM is bigger than the last, and the solution is usually BUY MORE PILLS.

 

[hoshin1600]

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 .

This section is not actually part of the theory. It was in my notes as a linked thought. Other than that there us no mention of crime or criminal.

As a note, the use of the word "criminal" may be one of the more contentious issues in your model. Can you think of another, more objective/less inflammatory word to use? (This is why we have all the weird words used in Psychology and Sociology - to divorce the concept from existing connotations).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If an experiment isn't replicable, it isn't really science as far as I am concerned. I see psychology as a pho-industry tailored to sell more and more products for big pharm. Sure, there are some interesting hypothesis, but nothing approaching hard science. Every edition of the DSM is bigger than the last, and the solution is usually BUY MORE PILLS.

Replication studies are performed. They are less successful at replication than you'd get in the natural sciences, for reasons that should be no surprise - psychology is a bit more individual than physics is. Psychology, like any other science, rigorously challenges its own beliefs and follows what the research tells. Each year we have more answers from research than were available before. Unfortunately, some research (such as the efficacy of treatment methods) is difficult to bring to the desired level, because we can't play with people's psyche, and there are too many uncontrollable variables. That makes it a science with known issues, it doesn't remove the science of it. And if pills are working in studies more reliably than other treatments, then that's what the research says works, so whether we like it or not, that's what science points us to.

 

[Martial D]

Replication studies are performed. They are less successful at replication than you'd get in the natural sciences, for reasons that should be no surprise - psychology is a bit more individual than physics is. Psychology, like any other science, rigorously challenges its own beliefs and follows what the research tells. Each year we have more answers from research than were available before. Unfortunately, some research (such as the efficacy of treatment methods) is difficult to bring to the desired level, because we can't play with people's psyche, and there are too many uncontrollable variables. That makes it a science with known issues, it doesn't remove the science of it. And if pills are working in studies more reliably than other treatments, then that's what the research says works, so whether we like it or not, that's what science points us to.

This is way to subjective for my tastes. The lack of replicablility makes the data very subject to manipulation, and in these cases you can generally just follow the money to see why that is. The debate about whether psychology is a science is longstanding and continues to this very day in academia, so it's unlikely you and I will solve it here.

I'm comfortable with you believing in it while I do not. It doesn't effect our usual fare of when to use what punch and the physics of martial arts movements etc...

 

[Juany118]

but this is the nature of all endeavors. trial and error, with lots of error. which is the whole point in me thinking outloud (in type) here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.

well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.

Oh agreed. My main point was just to show that something that was largely based on a philosophical basis is viewed in a profoundly different way once emperical quantitative studies have been applied to the topic. It's things like this that have impacted not just the practice of modern Psychology but the way studies in the field are conducted. Jung especially was a proponent of Qualitative studies as he said...

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throughout the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul.

But today, while such attitudes and are used in professional practice, the actual studies, and the methods within that qualitative framework, are based in quantitative studies, or the "scholar's gown" so to speak.

 

[Juany118]

This is way to subjective for my tastes. The lack of replicablility makes the data very subject to manipulation, and in these cases you can generally just follow the money to see why that is. The debate about whether psychology is a science is longstanding and continues to this very day in academia, so it's unlikely you and I will solve it here.

I'm comfortable with you believing in it while I do not. It doesn't effect our usual fare of when to use what punch and the physics of martial arts movements etc...

I think where sometimes people get confused is that the don't understand that there is a difference between a study where one is trying to determine contributing factors to a problem and then treatment. In a proper quantitative, even qualitative, study you have a large enough data set that you can control for specific variables in individuals. When it comes to actual therapy however you can't control for the variables, you have to address them.

So on the one hand you will have a quantitative, statistically based study that is accurate at addressing the impact of various trauma on the majority of people BUT then when it comes time to help the client you need a broader method that is qualitative because clients will react differently to treatment. That's an example sometimes it can take weeks months even years before you want the client to talk about the incident that did traumatize them because in speaking about it they can essentially be retraumatized.

This doesn't make Psychology as a Science "less" scientific though. All science evolves as new evidence is recognized for what it is. I typically use the Heleocentric model as an example. Before we had the idea of elliptical orbits Copernicus' cosmological model had the planets performing spirals centered on a circular orbit to explain what could be observed from earth. This did not invalidate the Heliocentric model, it was simply was made more accurate when the concept of elliptical orbits was introduced. The same can be said of the transition from Newtonian Physics to modern Physics. Many of Newton's Principles hold true, we just have a better understanding as to WHY they happen, he was wrong on that part in many ways, the best example I can think of is his idea of Aether. His theory of light required a substance to exist in space, which he called Aether, to propogate through. Heck until Einstein proposing that light is both a particle and a wave you had a "war" of sorts over whether it was "simply" a particle or a wave.

Science has always been about change and evolution, Psychology is no different.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think where sometimes people get confused is that the don't understand that there is a difference between a study where one is trying to determine contributing factors to a problem and then treatment. In a proper quantitative, even qualitative, study you have a large enough data set that you can control for specific variables in individuals. When it comes to actual therapy however you can't control for the variables, you have to address them.

So on the one hand you will have a quantitative, statistically based study that is accurate at addressing the impact of various trauma on the majority of people BUT then when it comes time to help the client you need a broader method that is qualitative because clients will react differently to treatment. That's an example sometimes it can take weeks months even years before you want the client to talk about the incident that did traumatize them because in speaking about it they can essentially be retraumatized.

This doesn't make Psychology as a Science "less" scientific though. All science evolves as new evidence is recognized for what it is. I typically use the Heleocentric model as an example. Before we had the idea of elliptical orbits Copernicus' cosmological model had the planets performing spirals centered on a circular orbit to explain what could be observed from earth. This did not invalidate the Heliocentric model, it was simply was made more accurate when the concept of elliptical orbits was introduced. The same can be said of the transition from Newtonian Physics to modern Physics. Many of Newton's Principles hold true, we just have a better understanding as to WHY they happen, he was wrong on that part in many ways, the best example I can think of is his idea of Aether. His theory of light required a substance to exist in space, which he called Aether, to propogate through. Heck until Einstein proposing that light is both a particle and a wave you had a "war" of sorts over whether it was "simply" a particle or a wave.

Science has always been about change and evolution, Psychology is no different.

I think part of the problem is that most folks don't see a difference between Psychology and Psychological/Psychiatric treatment. There's a definite lack of science (but not evidence) behind treatment. In fact, what rigorous research we do have suggests that most kinds of treatment are effective for the right people, when delivered by the right professional. Of course, that may be as close as we ever get, since the variables are as wide-ranging as those surrounding self-defense.

 

[JowGaWolf]

the purpose of my posting is to gain understanding of violence.

I don't think this can be understood in a vacuum. There is always going to be some kind of context