The luck aggression principle

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sometimes defense is the only option.

What situation are you talking about?

 

[Oily Dragon]

Also, and this is extremely important, they need to know with certainty that they are acting legally and morally correct. This is easy to do in a sports situation, but mich harder to do in a self-defense situation. It takes sweating the details legally and morally before an incident.

Before, during, and definitely after.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Well Jared kind of summed it up but in a self defense situation...it's defense. You're far better off learning defensive skills, rather than attack.

In a sports context like boxing, attack is fine. If you're on the street, defense rules. Staying Alive rules.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Well Jared kind of summed it up but in a self defense situation...it's defense. You're far better off learning defensive skills, rather than attack.

In a sports context like boxing, attack is fine. If you're on the street, defense rules. Staying Alive rules.

How about protect your love one rules?

Assume self-defense also include to protect your love one. If the bus driver (in this video) is your wife, and you are on that bus, how will you be able to save her if you don't attack those 2 bad guys?

 

[Jared Traveler]

Most people don't have it in them to damage people in a real life self-defense situation. They do in theory, but not in the actual moment.

 

[GojuTommy]

Well Jared kind of summed it up but in a self defense situation...it's defense. You're far better off learning defensive skills, rather than attack.

In a sports context like boxing, attack is fine. If you're on the street, defense rules. Staying Alive rules.

Staying alive in that case requires a perfect defense that lets nothing through.
And most assaults don’t result in death so you’ll probably stay alive regardless.

 

[GojuTommy]

Also, and this is extremely important, they need to know with certainty that they are acting legally and morally correct. This is easy to do in a sports situation, but mich harder to do in a self-defense situation. It takes sweating the details legally and morally before an incident.

Since most self defense situations have little to no build up, I’m not so sure that legality or morality concerns have that much to do with it.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Since most self defense situations have little to no build up, I’m not so sure that legality or morality concerns have that much to do with it.

I'm not sure I'm following you?

 

[Holmejr]

Learning how to apply the technique with aggression in a dojo, does not mean it will be applied with an appropriate level of aggression in a self-defense situation. There are reasons people fail to bring aggression in a real encounter.

Teaching that means you need to understand the phycology of why people soft ball their techniques in a real encounter.

In our class typically if you ask a new student to hit you as hard as they can with an arnis, they just can’t do it. They’ll hit you with about a third of what they’re capable of. When you say “that wasn’t hard, hit harder, you can almost see the conflict on their face. I’ve come to the conclusion that civilized folk need to train to harness or call up that explosive aggression when needed. With that we reinforce morality, concepts of grace and the legalities of our actions. We want our students in good control of the throttle.

 

[GojuTommy]

I'm not sure I'm following you?

Most situations where someone will have to defend themselves will happen very suddenly, and there’s no time to think about ‘Is what I’m about to do legal or morally just?’
You either react and fight, freeze, or attempt to flee.
In a situation where you think a self defense situation may be developing either it’s the other person blustering, or you can completely disengage and avoid.

The situations where someone has the time to question if their actions are legal are pretty rare

 

[Oily Dragon]

How about protect your love one rules?

Assume self-defense also include to protect your love one. If the bus driver (in this video) is your wife, and you are on that bus, how will you be able to save her if you don't attack those 2 bad guys?

Sure but his defense came a bit late in the game.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Most people don't have it in them to damage people in a real life self-defense situation. They do in theory, but not in the actual moment.

What actual data is this based on? I suspect none, but if you have some, please share.

 

[skribs]

In our class typically if you ask a new student to hit you as hard as they can with an arnis, they just can’t do it. They’ll hit you with about a third of what they’re capable of. When you say “that wasn’t hard, hit harder, you can almost see the conflict on their face. I’ve come to the conclusion that civilized folk need to train to harness or call up that explosive aggression when needed. With that we reinforce morality, concepts of grace and the legalities of our actions. We want our students in good control of the throttle.

I used to be so mean to our students in Taekwondo. If we had an odd number of kids sparring, I would just partner up with one. They would be hesitant to hit me because I wasn't wearing pads. I'd just pat my belly and say "I've got plenty of padding."

They would barely barely tap me, and I'd tell them they can hit me harder. They would barely tap me, and again, I'd tell them to hit me harder. They would tap me, and again, I'd tell them to hit me harder. Finally, they would connect with a decent hit, at which point I would go, "Ow! Why'd you hit me so hard!"

They'd freak out for a second, but then realize I'm just messing with them and they're actually okay, and then they'd be fine hitting me with a decent level of contact.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Most situations where someone will have to defend themselves will happen very suddenly, and there’s no time to think about ‘Is what I’m about to do legal or morally just?’
You either react and fight, freeze, or attempt to flee.
In a situation where you think a self defense situation may be developing either it’s the other person blustering, or you can completely disengage and avoid.

The situations where someone has the time to question if their actions are legal are pretty rare

There is a lot that can be done to insure someone responds the way they want to, morally and legally, despite it being an acute sudden incident. That's the real trick to insuring the proper level of counter violence is applied at the right moment.

 

[Jared Traveler]

What actual data is this based on? I suspect none, but if you have some, please share.

If you want data, begin by reading "Men Against Fire" or "On Killing." But I speak from observation and personal experience. As a street cop, detention officer and police academy defensive tactics instructor, training hundreds of people to use force. Have you read these books? I would say they are jam packed, loaded with data. Also foundational for understanding teaching people to use force.

 

[GojuTommy]

What actual data is this based on? I suspect none, but if you have some, please share.

Post WWII (maybe it was WWI?) a study was done and discovered that most soldiers who saw combat simply fired in the general direction of the enemy rather than actually aiming at the enemy with the intent to shoot them.

And I’d be willing to bet there’s an anthropological and sociological reason why most people have a difficult time actually harming other people.

 

[Jared Traveler]

There is a

Post WWII (maybe it was WWI?) a study was done and discovered that most soldiers who saw combat simply fired in the general direction of the enemy rather than actually aiming at the enemy with the intent to shoot them.

And I’d be willing to bet there’s an anthropological and sociological reason why most people have a difficult time actually harming other people.

Yep. Men Against Fire.

 

[GojuTommy]

I used to be so mean to our students in Taekwondo. If we had an odd number of kids sparring, I would just partner up with one. They would be hesitant to hit me because I wasn't wearing pads. I'd just pat my belly and say "I've got plenty of padding."

They would barely barely tap me, and I'd tell them they can hit me harder. They would barely tap me, and again, I'd tell them to hit me harder. They would tap me, and again, I'd tell them to hit me harder. Finally, they would connect with a decent hit, at which point I would go, "Ow! Why'd you hit me so hard!"

They'd freak out for a second, but then realize I'm just messing with them and they're actually okay, and then they'd be fine hitting me with a decent level of contact.

At my old dojo I had a similar thing I did.
In the time I was in the navy a kid had gotten his BB by the time I returned.
We were doing a drill where one side wore head gear and punched, the other side was supposed to parry and back fist. Not full force but with some good oomph behind it.
This teenage kid was tapping my head gear as if he was working with someone half his age and size, rather than twice his age and nearly twice his size. I eventually just took off the head gear and told him I wasn’t worried about him hurting me. I told him I wanted him to hurt me, and if he didn’t he’d be in trouble.

He never did. His father complained to the head instructor who he was friends with that his poor little boy didn’t appreciate being pushed so hard.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Post WWII (maybe it was WWI?) a study was done and discovered that most soldiers who saw combat simply fired in the general direction of the enemy rather than actually aiming at the enemy with the intent to shoot them.

I am familiar with it.

It's stretching the definition of "study" to apply it to that bit of creative (and likely fictional) writing. Other WWII historians (notably Leinbaugh) have pointed out good reasons to think Marshall may have made it up entirely. Sort of like the British Dr who published the "study" showing a link between vaccines and autism.

Additionally, that "study" does nothing to support your claim; it does not even pretend to address the motivations of those who supposedly did not fire. Was it an unwillingness to hurt someone, or a few of being hurt? That is one of the more damning omissions from the work. I find it inconceivable that if you were interviewing a solder, and they said they had not fired as they were trained, your very next question would be "why not?".

 

[Jared Traveler]

I am familiar with it.

It's stretching the definition of "study" to apply it to that bit of creative (and likely fictional) writing. Other WWII historians (notably Leinbaugh) have pointed out good reasons to think Marshall may have made it up entirely. Sort of like the British Dr who published the "study" showing a link between vaccines and autism.

Additionally, that "study" does nothing to support your claim; it does not even pretend to address the motivations of those who supposedly did not fire. Was it an unwillingness to hurt someone, or a few of being hurt? That is one of the more damning omissions from the work. I find it inconceivable that if you were interviewing a solder, and they said they had not fired as they were trained, your very next question would be "why not?".

I think to understand the subject you have to evaluate the very dramatic difference between being violent (which humans are great at) verse using counter violence when needed(humans are not great at). They are very different things.

I'm not sure if you believe humans tend to do well at this or not?