I taught a private lesson on Thursday, going over the material covered in last Sunday’s webinar. My client raised a couple of interesting questions that I was happy to discuss and I will summarise my views below.
Firstly, the self-protection view of social and predatory/asocial violence distinctions is an extremely important area of study. To understand the difference between these two types of violence is to understand what should dictate self-protection and what is legally justifiable as self-defence. From a self-protection point of view, social violence has no place. We cannot legally justify fighting someone to establish a pecking order or defend one’s pride. The place for consensual violence is on the mats, in the ring and in the cage. There are also predators who use the guise of consensual violence to attain their own gratification. With this in mind, it is easy to unknowingly be drawn into a pre-planned, dangerous situation on the pretense that you were simply standing up for yourself or a participant in a heated debate. Choose your battles wisely.
Another point to consider is that violent criminals come in a wide variety. They may be categorised as part of the Dark Triad – psychopaths, Machiavellians and grandiose narcissists – and the Vulnerable Dark Triad – secondary psychopaths (aka sociopaths), vulnerable narcissists and borderline personality disorder patients. However, it is arguable that many offenders might fall outside these categories. After all, history has demonstrated that virtually entire nations and cultures have been motivated to commit heinous acts against their fellow human beings. Otherwise altruistic human beings have justified atrocities or illegal acts of violence. Peer pressure, zealous belief in an extreme cause, motivations by desperate circumstances, bad behaviours taught by their local society or the belief that ends justify the means, are all important factors to consider when it comes to assessing the types of offender we might face and the tactics we might use to protect ourselves from their violence. This is something I will go into more when I discuss the pre-incident indicators in the next course.
Our overall lesson in the above matters is to do our best to avoid social violence in all its forms. Self-protection strategies largely contradict social violence from a legal and dynamic standpoint.
The OODA Loop, created by Colonel John Boyd, was also discussed in depth. My client asked how the response loop can be directly applied as a tactic and also why Mo Teague’s 3 Rs were more applicable to interpersonal violence. Tactically a person is taught to go through several stages of identifying a threat and taking the appropriate action whilst being mindful to re-identify once the action has been carried out. Boyd’s approach was based on his experiences training World War 2 fighter pilots and it fits that particular dynamic. The model was then applied outside this field and became popular in the corporate sector. The underlying argument is that we all go through a response loop and this makes us aware of this particular loop, allowing us to take advantage of the stages. We need to identify a risk and then do our best to surpass that risk’s own response loop. The individual or group with the fastest spinning loop controls the decisions. This is the key point that Mo Teague flagged up as a sticking point for interpersonal violence. The OODA Loop works fine until you face a threat who has already decided what they want to do. Now, you have little choice but react to what is going to happen. The 3 Rs – Recognise, Read and Respond – cut down this process. Now you can default down to your training – you recognise the threat, read their intentions and take appropriate action before recognising the next threat.
DON’T FORGET TO BOOK YOURSELF ON THE NEXT WEBINAR ON 7TH JUNE. IF YOU MISSED THIS ONE, WHY NOT CONSIDER BOOKING ME TO TEACH YOUR GROUP OR A PRIVATE LESSON.