OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
Personally within this thread I have no interest in hot buttons. We are all martial artists, that is my focus.
Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence
- Thread starter hoshin1600
- Start date
Actually, this is pretty much the standard myth of the "peaceful warrior" in TMA, especially non-sport/non-contact traditional martial arts that mainly teach kids. You know the spiel: teaching MA to inculcate values such as discipline, hard-work, respect, confidence, fitness of mind and body, and learning to fight to avoid fighting. Didn't you see the Karate Kid?
Last edited:
Hey Juany, Vulcans got issues like stereotypes, racism, chauvinism, and bullying too.
Juany118
Senior Master
I don't either. The problem is that the study of violence based on gender is in and of itself a hot buttons issue since the bulk of modern science, including neuroscience, has moved away from the evolutionary models and focuses more on the environment in which people are nurtered. I mentioned neuroscience because, as we have seen, the field of Psychology is woefully misunderstood and conclusions reflexively dismissed. Neuroscience, through brain scans, has shown that juvenile and young adult brains are underdeveloped and that trauma can effect the lymbic system and brain development, these having an impact on violence, impulse control and risk taking behaviors. That in and of itself is a hot buttons because regardless of the fact that is "hard science" it raises questions in terms of how the criminal justice system should address defendants.
There really is no way to avoid hot buttons on this particular topic, sadly, unless you are discussing it with a group who agrees to be "Mr Spock" and leave Ideology at the door and argue data vs data and not data vs ideology.
Juany118
Senior Master
Let me rephrase. I wish we were all Spock, the TOS version. (so long as he isn't in pon farr mode
)
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
be that as it may, this is a martial arts forum. we are martial artists and my interest in the subject is from that starting point. being a male, i have no intention of having to "fight" a women. regardless of ideology we do know that males engage in violent crime more often than women. therefore it is not unreasonable to make the assumption that if i have to defend my self and my family the percentage of it being a male is higher and it can be assumed as such. i have not seen a thread yet here on MT that did not make the assumption of a male attacker.
if "there is no way to avoid an ideology" then that is your baggage not mine. we would not be having this conversation if not for you introducing the ideological concept the the thread.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
i am going to review my original concept and perhaps be a little more articulate.
from an evolutionary perspective, when there is a group of an animals living in a society they have to solve the problem of living together in a unified manner that helps to forward the species. evolution seems to have solved the social issue by creating a dominance hierarchy. if we didnt have this then every individual would be only interested in self preservation and we know that group preservation is more successful than an individual one. species perpetuation wouldnt go very far if we ate our young and killed our mate. to progress at first you note the patterns of behavior that make up the hierarchy and adapt socially but also over time you biologically adapt to the dominance hierarchy. so what emerges is a set of social behaviors. the first problem is what are the behaviors that will keep me alive in the group, that will keep me from having the other members tear me apart and kill me (chimps do this, its quite violent) so you learn quickly who can tear you apart and who you can tear apart. you learn the behaviors that keep this from happening. this establishes the "PECK ORDER" if we look at a less complex creature like a chicken, the dominant male is usually the largest and strongest and perhaps the most willing to use force on the others. (the best fighter) so this model of dominance hierarchy i have termed the "Primal dominance hierarchy" but we are not chickens and we are by far more complex. we have a frontal cortex and what that does is enable us to actually create our own hierarchy and move past the alligator brain that does nothing but fight, eat and procreate. the human brain has neuroplasticity, we can change the "wiring" in our neocortex. we have a morality. that changes the hierarchy that we function within. as a species we have moved away from violence as the solution to social order. now we are not there 100% and that is the base line for the issue. the morality or values we have create a rule set within the hierarchy that not eveyone plays by. in that is the paradox. a percentage are within a value based hierarchy and a percentage is working within a Primal hierarchy.
remember these models are expressions of the socially acceptable behaviors within that particular hierarchy. AND THEY DONT MATCH. as self defenders we have to accept that some people are operating under a different set of right and wrong. our sense of what is normal becomes an unconscious assumption of how others are going to behave. these assumptions can work against us in a multitude of ways.
from an evolutionary perspective, when there is a group of an animals living in a society they have to solve the problem of living together in a unified manner that helps to forward the species. evolution seems to have solved the social issue by creating a dominance hierarchy. if we didnt have this then every individual would be only interested in self preservation and we know that group preservation is more successful than an individual one. species perpetuation wouldnt go very far if we ate our young and killed our mate. to progress at first you note the patterns of behavior that make up the hierarchy and adapt socially but also over time you biologically adapt to the dominance hierarchy. so what emerges is a set of social behaviors. the first problem is what are the behaviors that will keep me alive in the group, that will keep me from having the other members tear me apart and kill me (chimps do this, its quite violent) so you learn quickly who can tear you apart and who you can tear apart. you learn the behaviors that keep this from happening. this establishes the "PECK ORDER" if we look at a less complex creature like a chicken, the dominant male is usually the largest and strongest and perhaps the most willing to use force on the others. (the best fighter) so this model of dominance hierarchy i have termed the "Primal dominance hierarchy" but we are not chickens and we are by far more complex. we have a frontal cortex and what that does is enable us to actually create our own hierarchy and move past the alligator brain that does nothing but fight, eat and procreate. the human brain has neuroplasticity, we can change the "wiring" in our neocortex. we have a morality. that changes the hierarchy that we function within. as a species we have moved away from violence as the solution to social order. now we are not there 100% and that is the base line for the issue. the morality or values we have create a rule set within the hierarchy that not eveyone plays by. in that is the paradox. a percentage are within a value based hierarchy and a percentage is working within a Primal hierarchy.
remember these models are expressions of the socially acceptable behaviors within that particular hierarchy. AND THEY DONT MATCH. as self defenders we have to accept that some people are operating under a different set of right and wrong. our sense of what is normal becomes an unconscious assumption of how others are going to behave. these assumptions can work against us in a multitude of ways.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
The dominance hierarchy is the framework that the fabric of societal behaviors are laid upon.
Rory mIller has put forth his ideas of what he calls "the logic of violence" he states the motivations for violence are
Rory mIller has put forth his ideas of what he calls "the logic of violence" he states the motivations for violence are
- fear
- material gain
- status
- membership
- territory
- protocols
- social motivations
- pleasure
Juany118
Senior Master
I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens. Modern Psychology, Neuroscience and many in the growing field of evolutionary psychology look at it like this.
There are biological components. The lymbic system, the fight or flight response etc. This provides the physiological foundation on how/why conflict occurrs. But that is largely the limit of what evolution has brought us because of the impact our cognitive abilities provide vs other animals.
Basically at it's core there is no biological difference that makes men more violent than women. The psychology of the person can be influence by these factors in the moment but only to a degree. It is the envionment in which they were nurtured which has the biggest impact on why the trigger is pulled.
So, to use historical periods as a model, in a tribal hunter gather society your environment dictates you be more ready to "pull the trigger" whether to ensure a successful hunt or protect "yours" from a rival tribe.
As society becomes more structured the environment that "trains" us psychologically becomes safer, there is less need to hunt so there is less need to pull the trigger.
Now in many cultures there is environmental programming, that when taken to extremes can be toxic, that say "the man is X", in this case more violent. However they have performed quantitative and qualitative studies comparing patriarchal and matriarchal communities in the developing world where the "norms" in the patriarchal one (firm leadership, spatial reasoning, control and dominance being stronger in men) is mirrored by the women in the matriarchal society. In short the only difference in terms of the capacity for violence, not born of the Psychology created by our nurturing environment, is that men are on average stronger, faster and better suited for committing physical violence beyond that biological evolution has very little to do with it.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
when a conflict occurs i have termed this a
Volatile Interaction
When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence.
when an individual is operating under the Primal model his response and solution to the conflict leans toward violence. (might is right)
when an individual is operating under the Value model his response tends to lean towards negotiation. (peaceful resolution and agreement)
the problem is that an individual who is operating within the Primal model does not hold negotiation as a valid response.
in the 1970's and 80's the work of Nicholas Groth showed us that the underlying motivation for sexual crime was dominance and power. the side benefit from his studies was the revelation that many prevention concepts were nothing more than myth and had no basis in reality. they didnt actually work.
we can extrapolate that concept to gain an understanding of other violent behaviors that also have a basis on dominance and power.
the first thing to be learned is you cannot negotiate with violence.
Volatile Interaction
When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence.
when an individual is operating under the Primal model his response and solution to the conflict leans toward violence. (might is right)
when an individual is operating under the Value model his response tends to lean towards negotiation. (peaceful resolution and agreement)
the problem is that an individual who is operating within the Primal model does not hold negotiation as a valid response.
in the 1970's and 80's the work of Nicholas Groth showed us that the underlying motivation for sexual crime was dominance and power. the side benefit from his studies was the revelation that many prevention concepts were nothing more than myth and had no basis in reality. they didnt actually work.
we can extrapolate that concept to gain an understanding of other violent behaviors that also have a basis on dominance and power.
the first thing to be learned is you cannot negotiate with violence.
Juany118
Senior Master
The above being said, a dominance heirarchy (which is actually covered extensively in the overarching concept of toxic masculinity) is indeed a driving force of violence, even if you look at aggressive competitions. The only contention I have, unless I misunderstood, is I believe you see that as a product of human evolution of man whereas modern science sees it as a product of the contemporary environment the subject is raised in, or the "reprogramming" that may be done via intensive training or traumatic incidents.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
if you say im "outdated" you will have to expand on this. because i dont see this at all. the lymbic system to an extent regulate our emotions and memories, thus within memories it controls our "procedural memory" and this is how we attain skills ,,in this case our skill in martial arts. the fight / flight is self evident, but these two systems in now way provide a HOW or a WHY conflict occurrs. it dictates an applicable skill set.
again lets stay away from genders. and for the record i never said men are more violent. i did actually state that the repercussions of violence are greater with men. there is no doubt that men can generate more force in a strike than a women ,,, but this is all beside the point and the conversation
this is actually very close to what i am saying.
i dont know where you are going with this...i actually do not disagree with your statement , i just dont know how it relates to what i am saying.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
i will have to spend some time reading on "toxic masculinity" so i can have a logical debate on this. we may be saying the same thing.
Juany118
Senior Master
Then it's my misunderstanding because I thought you were saying that men due to biological evolution have this dominance dynamic. That is something that was believe many decades ago but with increasing Knowledge from the fields of Psychology and Neuroscience has essentially been debunked. My apologies for misunderstanding where you saw the origin of the dominance dynamic
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
when i use the term dominance i am not using it as an equivalent to violence or to a toxic behavior. the hierarchy gives rise to acceptable behaviors and non acceptable behaviors. without a framework of social norms society would collapse. to be successful in the world we need to navigate interpersonal relationships. this is a hierarchy, one that we move through to get to that "corner office".
now if we look at an underprivileged youth he also has to navigate through a hierarchy within a gang or a neighborhood. it is the same social workings but on different frame works.
but the guy working for the corner office and the teen looking for street cred have different values. these values will clash. my thought is to understand the similarities across these type of behaviors and where they diverge.
through deep understanding and building a working model (albeit simplified) the goal is to have this model as a guide for developing martial arts training procedures. ie how we train
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
As I read over posts again I thought I would add that in
Dominant hierarchy groups like primates the most violent member is not the alpha. The amount of grooming of others plays a significant role. So the alpha also needs a political savy. A group does not want a malevolent leader.
Dominant hierarchy groups like primates the most violent member is not the alpha. The amount of grooming of others plays a significant role. So the alpha also needs a political savy. A group does not want a malevolent leader.
Juany118
Senior Master
Well, I would argue that "dominance", in a sociological and psychological perspective, is a negative and/or toxic trait in a civilized and cooperative society under the rule of law.
Dominance is not simply controlling a particular situation, it is about consistent and knowing control over others, against their will, in an overall heirarchy. It is domineering in nature. So where a gang member may be using violence as a tool of control over the shopkeeper on his "turf" (dominance) the shopkeeper, if he uses violence to defend himself against said gang member, would be using it simply to protect himself and regain his own agency.
Dominance in short is controlling a hierarchy through some sort of force whether by political force, violence, psychological force, economic force. In short the person who is dominant creates, through his dominance, someone who is oppressed. You can have control of a heirarchy however without dominance, allowing those underneath you to maintain their own agency (within limits agreed to by society). This kind of power can occur in a democratic system, collectivization, a job market where people apply for where they wish to work vs being an indentured servant or an outright slave etc.
Juany118
Senior Master
Indeed but in the end there are two differences. First the level of cognition is very different. Secondly the Alpha, while not the most violent, is the most powerful. If the more violent guy challenges the Alpha he gets beat down. I see this last dynamic often in my work. I work with a HUGE guy, all muscle. He is quite and slow to anger but carries himself in such a way you know he could break you. He is not however, in a sociological manner, engaging in dominance when his mere presence diffuses a situation where the thug was trying to express dominance because Dominance in the end is an expression of force of some sort. Force is not necessary to exert control however.
I think maybe the problem we are having is that we may be using two different definitions. You are using the one used largely for animal communities. I am using the one used in Psychology. Yes in psychology being the submissive can have a benefit but to quote Dario Maestripieri Ph.D.
"...So the advantage of establishing dominance to the subordinate is that he cuts his losses. Cutting one's losses? That's it? Yes, the truth is that subordination sucks, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
Behaving submissively to the dominant is advantageous to the subordinate only as a short-term strategy, to give the subordinate some time to acquire more physical strength or political power to mount an effective rebellion against the dominant. For example, it's advantageous to a younger and smaller individual to be subordinate to an older and larger one until the former has grown to be as large as or larger than the latter. Then, a fight will become necessary and advantageous. If the subordinate never challenges the dominant, the costs of subordination would continue to accumulate over time and at some point, this would become a maladaptive strategy: the costs would be greater than the benefits...."
So we may simply be having a disagreement based in the semantics of a single word.
OP
OP
hoshin1600
Senior Master
Yes I see where you are coming from now I was just reading Wikipedia on toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity and your response just now tells me that we have nothing we can discuss. You are correct your ideological views send this conversation down a rabbit hole of Marxist thought that I feel are inseparable. The ideology of toxic masculinity that bases it's belief on the suppression of women, misogyny homophobia. ....has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts......I have been reading a lot about Marxism of late and to be honest I do not really want to continue this conversation.
I really enjoy your contribution when your coming from the LEO side...not so much when your pushing ideology from your girl friends SJW opinions. So for now I'm done.
Juany118
Senior Master
To confirm you read this one? Toxic masculinity - Wikipedia
I only ask because this has NOTHING to do with Feminism at all and speaks largely (almost exclusively) as to how it is damaging to men as individuals and how that in turn is damaging to society.
As an example it specifically states... "The concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance.."
Those mythical ideals, or certain/specific attributes being the ones like "real men don't cry" and physical dominance, that men are "the bread winners" etc. I fail to see how this is Marxist, or even feminist in nature, it is talking about hyper masculine sterotypes that sadly some men fall into. I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion from the wiki entry (if we are talking about the same one).
Here is an article agreeing with me btw from one of the MOST Conservative news outlets in the Country. Understanding Toxic Masculinity: Why Defending Men Isn't Enough
As for LEO stuff, toxic masculinity is actually being used as a corner stone for prison rehabilitation and therapy related to diversion programs with Youth, hence why I know a bit about it, so it's related to my LE experience. So like it or not, the premise you are creating is already largely created and discussed at length in numerous peer reviewed studies based on quantitative research and it's being put into practice in our Prisons and schools that teach at risk youth.
Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. - PubMed - NCBI
Last edited:
