WC_lun
Senior Master
You have to understand the nature of the attack. If all attacks were the same, I would not bother with self-defense techniques, I'd shoot everyone who raised a hand to me. I'm not saying you can always divine the intent of the person attacking but there are lots of times you might not want to, say, shatter a knee, collapse a pelvis, or crush a windpipe. Pain techniques are great if you have a situation which calls for them. But the person being attacked has to have some ability to determine when that is and when it is not time to use them.
In no way am I advocating to permanantly injure someone when defending yourself if the circumstance does not call for it. What I am saying, is if someone is intent on harming you, there are much more effective ways to defend yourself than relying on low percentage pain only techniques. For example, taking an attacker's balance. It cuts his ability to attack at the same time gives you a greater time frame to do whatever you are going to do. There are many other options, of course.
Keep in mind, we are now discussing real self defense against someone intent on harming you. That decreases your options. Why do anything that does not directly increase your options, decrease your opponent's options, or better yet, do both? I think that must be the lens upon how we view good self defense techniques and theories. Things that might or might not work decreases your options. Things that have a high probabilty of working and if do not work, leave you in an easily recoverable position are superior in self defense because they do not decrease your options. This thought process is applicable to all circumstance of self defense.