A Real Life Adept In Action, Poetry In Motion Options

[Rad]

Well, I *tried* to not hijack the thread...

This has gotten way too big to do a line-by-line response, so I'll just address a few of the common points being brought up:

> Yes, humans do have some level of predatory instinct. It's influence varies according to the individual and the circumstances, and yes, running or otherwise showing weakness or fear can egg on an attacker in some situations. In fact, the kind of person likely to pick a fight with you (and especially the kind likely to attempt a sexual assault) is the kind most likely to respond to signals of fear and weakness--those are, in fact, exactly the responses they're probably looking for.

If you don't think showing fear can trigger predatory impulses in some people and egg them on, ask a school bully, or better yet, ask someone who's into S&M. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

> My biggest problems with running is that it's inefficient, and leaves you helpless. Running uses alot of energy, requires a certain amount of time for you to turn around before you can even begin to run, and once you are running you have your back to your attacker and cannot see or respond to their actions. In addition, turning to run telegraphs your intent.

You're betting everything on an action that takes longer, burns more energy, and is easy for your attacker to read. Not smart. Remember, you have to turn around before you can run, but your attacker doesn't have to turn around before they start chasing you.

Not only that, but running in no way hinders your attacker from coming after you, either then or at another time. In that respect, running always fails to stop a fight, it at best prolongs it. What you're really doing when you run is relying on your attacker having no way of stopping you and/or losing interest.

Running exposes you to more risk than facing (note: I said "facing", not necessarily "fighting") your opponent, because you can still keep your guard up while facing them.

> Relying on rules, be they laws or school policies, to keep you safe is a joke. Zero tolerance policies will not prevent you child from being attacked anymore than laws will prevent you from being mugged in an alley. Enforcement will always be an issue, and getting punished usually makes bullies take it out on their victim. This goes for adults as well, restraining orders are a good way to get yourself killed.

> People usually give off a lot of signs, and rarely initiate unprovoked attacks without some kind of warning. Thinking you "can't" predict an assault is even worse than thinking you "can't" hit them to prevent it. They're both pure falsehoods that impair you ability to protect yourself.

The question isn't whether you can, it's whether you should. This inhibition against violence only makes us prey to those who don't have it--or have less of it.

In this FBI report about criminals firing on police officers, the criminals had a much higher success rate of hitting their targets than the cops did--largely because the criminals did not hesitate and often managed to shoot first. By the time to cops responded, they were usually either wounded or at a greater distance due to the criminal moving away after firing.

The criminals in this report did not hesitate to shoot, did not take time to aim or align the gun sights, and often practiced more regularly than the police officers they shot at, though the quality of the practice was in doubt in some cases.

The result? The criminals were almost twice as successful at hitting their targets as the trained police officers they shot at.

I would rather be facing my attacker at a distance where I have a chance of stopping them if they go for a gun, than turning my back to them as they draw it.

The average distance for a successful hit in that study was 15 feet. The greatest distance was ten times that. There was one instance of an officer being hit at 150 feet by a criminal firing a shotgun. Ask yourself how often you get into an altercation at 150 feet, and then ask yourself how far away you'd need to be before it would be safe to turn your back and run.

> Martial arts that start with a block or parry are inefficient. Period. A strike requires less time and movement, and has a better chance of ending the fight, thus keeping you safe.

Running: Least efficient. Requires the most movement, has the least chance of ending the fight, and leaves you the most vulnerable.

Blocking/Dodging: More efficient. Requires less movement, has about the same chance of ending the fight (almost none), leaves you less vulnerable.

Striking: Most efficient. Requires the least amount of movement, has best chance of ending the fight (and the only chance of directly ending it), leaves you about as vulnerable as blocking if done correctly.

If someone is acting in an aggressive or threatening manner, there's a chance they may try to attack me. If they try to close with me or make a sudden movement, that chance goes up quite a bit. It's safer and more practical to strike preemptively in these situations, than to wait and hope I can defend against an attack that's already in progress. After all, what are the chances that angry guy was just reaching for his business card?

As for situations involving people you know--use your brain. If someone's making you feel uncomfortable, tell them so and ask them to back off. If they refuse or move closer, something is wrong--hit them.

The other chapters of the report "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers" can be found >here< it has a lot of information useful to those interested in self-defense, particularly involving firearms.

While I'm at it, I'd also suggest you read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker, which concerns predicting and defusing violent behavior, and "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" by Bruce Lee, which concerns efficiency and practicality in self-defense.

Here's a spoiler: Bruce Lee advocates striking as your first response to an attack.

Finally, I think the best chance of escaping a conflict unharmed lies with social manipulation in most cases. As has been pointed out, the social dominance aspect of our instincts is more active compared to hunting instincts or the like, and therefore is an easier button to push, one way or the other. In addition, trying to talk someone down can be performed while retreating, defending, or attacking, so even if it doesn't work you still have other options. In fact, talking to your attacker during a fight makes an excellent distraction which can be used in a number of ways.

It's the least-cost, least-risk response, which makes it the best, in my opinion.

[Wounded Ronin]

My only thought is that while we can always make a case for running, lots of people are fat and slow and out of shape, and if they run it will simply be a comedy show we get rather than any sort of evasion.

Huff, huff, huff, WHUMP WHUMP WHUMP.

[Cain]

Too much for a line by line response, so I'll try to sum up:

• Bruce Lee, and most "self-defense" manuals aren't interested in self-defense. They're interested in the way-of-the-warrior, techniques to combat and fighting. They're not interested in defending and running, they're interested in using their martial way to defeat an opponent.
  
• Defense is always the best place to start. Look at just about every martial art out there. They start by teaching students a defensive pattern, instigated by a punch or a kick from an opponent. These basic defensive patterns form the cre of just about every martial art out there, including the aggressive ones.
  
• Humans have no predatory instinct. Technically speaking, they have no instincts at all.
  
• Distance is, by all accounts, your best defense in every situation. 15 feet is enough to protect you against most handguns, and you can run 15 feet very quickly. Running is normally the best way to generate distance, since that's the fastest the human body can travel unaided.

THe bottom line here is that your primary strategy should be to run away from the situation. If you can't run, then you resort to other tactics, but only enough to make sure you can run. No one principle can cover everything in a fight, but the basic strategy of "defend and retreat" is one of the best when it comes to protecting yourself.

[psychophipps]

Cain, I can honestly say that you managed to post two things that I had never heard another human say, write, or type before in just two sentences of your post above this one. Kudos to you, sir.

Unfortunately, you were dead wrong on both counts.

Still, it's no mean feat to catch me with two things I had never experienced via any media before in such a short series. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Cain]

What, humans have no instincts? Ok, I'm stretching a bit; but by strict definition, we don't. An instinct is a complex behavior that cannot be overridden. Get a cat into chase mode, it must chase, it cannot help itself. A human being has a frontal cortex that overrides such things. That means in humans, they're just compulsions, and not "true" instincts.

I defy you to show me a single human behavior that cannot be overridden.

[Method]

You guys do realize that you are arguing one of the central controversies in evolutionary theory right? Experts in human behavior and evolution have gone rounds for decades about whether humans have instincts in the strictest sense. If you guys come to a consensus, I'll be a monkey's uncle... (fortunately we all know that consensus on the internet is impossible within our time-space continuum)

But just to add fuel to the fire: Drinking when you are thirsty. You can resist for awhile, but eventually hypernatremia will shut down your handy-dandy prefrontal cortex. You cannot choose to die of thirst.

[Cain]

Even then, suicide by thirst is entirely possible. Unpleasant, but possible. It just involves making a conscious choice to isolate yourself in a place with nothing to drink.

[hyzmarca]

Instincts are not behaviors that cannot be overridden. Instincts are innate non-learned inherent dispositions toward particular behaviors. There is a difference.

A dog or a cat can learn not to chase things fairly easily, and they can learn when not to chase things and hold themselves back from dangerous situations.

Likewise, humans who have no training will almost always respond to certain situations in exactly the same way. For example, using the hands to defend the face and neck during a fight,

[psychophipps]

Likewise, humans who have no training will almost always respond to certain situations in exactly the same way. For example, using the hands to defend the face and neck during a fight.

You mean the instinctive protection of the blood vessels that lead to the CNS and the CNS itself? The precise reaction that Krav Maga intensifies and hones to be more effective by relying on your instinctive reactions?

Surely you jest! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Fleinhoy]

First hard rule: NEVER GO TO A SCHOOL CALLED MASTER SO-AND-SO'S ANYTHING. This includes second line advertising, as in: "Oom Young Doe, the Grandmaster 'Iron Kim' Style". Within martial arts circles, publically advertising yourself as a master shows an incredible lack of humility. Just ask yourself this: do you really want to go to someone who's so insecure, he has to tell everyone he's a master?

Not necessarily true as a hard and fast rule, though I’d definitely place it under guidelines or in the “be wary of� category.

The main reason is that many teachers today name their schools in honour of their own masters; the prime example from my own experience was a fellow in Norway who’d named his TKD Pomese school after his own teacher.

[EDIT]
On the other hand, I've never lived or trained in the US, and in Europe the idea of a franchised martial arts school is relatively alien. Many teachers have a number of schools under their club/name, but these are for the most part old students who have started up on their own taking advantage of a more well known name, or simply several branches of the same company without the franchising aspect.

I seriously do think this approach may have a pretty big impac on the discussion.

[Cain]

[qng. uote]Instincts are not behaviors that cannot be overridden. Instincts are innate non-learned inherent dispositions toward particular behaviors. There is a difference. [/quote]
Almost. "Innate, non-learned inherent behaviors that cannot be overridden" is the correct definition, depending. At any event, "Human instinct" has been a discarded notion since the 70's.

As Method pointed out, this is a highly disputed field or psychology; however, most definitions classify an instinct as "irresistible". They also agree that, for the most part, a human "predatory instinct" or instinct for violence does not exist.

Not necessarily true as a hard and fast rule, though I�€™d definitely place it under guidelines or in the �€œbe wary of�€� category.

The main reason is that many teachers today name their schools in honour of their own masters; the prime example from my own experience was a fellow in Norway who�€™d named his TKD Pomese school after his own teacher.

[EDIT]
On the other hand, I've never lived or trained in the US, and in Europe the idea of a franchised martial arts school is relatively alien. Many teachers have a number of schools under their club/name, but these are for the most part old students who have started up on their own taking advantage of a more well known name, or simply several branches of the same company without the franchising aspect.

I seriously do think this approach may have a pretty big impac on the discussion.

In just about every case I know of here, if you want to name a school in honor of your master, you take the name of the style. For example, no one calls their art: "Bruce Lee Kung Fu"; they call it "Jun Fan" or "Jeet Kune Do". Sometimes this leads to style wars, as in the aforementioned "Jeet Kune Do", where lots of people will fight over the right to a name. This is also why many masters will tend to keep their names out of it.

On a less controversial note, Sijo Emperado is the acknowledged founder of Kajukembo. Some of his students went on to be highly recognized in their own right, such as Al and Mark Dacascos. Instead of naming a school after them, their students call their art "Wun Hop Quen Do", with the Dacascos name tossed in here and there for PR purposes. Basically, rather than breach ettiquette and steal someone's name, you use the name of their style in their honor.

[Fleinhoy]

Er, we're not talking about "stealing someone's name" here. That would be both rude and monumentally stupid as most students opening their own schools are still quite eager to retain good relations with their old master.

From what I've seen it would be more the result of a polite question, if the answer's yes, then go ahead and use the name, if no, then they have to think of something else.

I see the point with the style wars, though, but that only makes it more important to be polite about the whole thing, and not step on the toes of neither former teachers or other student plannig to open their own schools.

[Cain]

Still doesn't change the fact that you usually take the name of the style, and not the instructor. I'll wager that what you see is a lot of "Kajukembo" in large letters with a small line saying: "Founded by Sijo Emperado". It's a far cry from: "Oom Yung Doe! The Grandmaster Iron Kim Style!" (which, incidentally, is a direct quote from the sign we mentioned earlier.

[Rad]

Too much for a line by line response, so I'll try to sum up:

• Bruce Lee, and most "self-defense" manuals aren't interested in self-defense. They're interested in the way-of-the-warrior, techniques to combat and fighting. They're not interested in defending and running, they're interested in using their martial way to defeat an opponent.
  
• Defense is always the best place to start. Look at just about every martial art out there. They start by teaching students a defensive pattern, instigated by a punch or a kick from an opponent. These basic defensive patterns form the cre of just about every martial art out there, including the aggressive ones.
  
• Humans have no predatory instinct. Technically speaking, they have no instincts at all.
  
• Distance is, by all accounts, your best defense in every situation. 15 feet is enough to protect you against most handguns, and you can run 15 feet very quickly. Running is normally the best way to generate distance, since that's the fastest the human body can travel unaided.

THe bottom line here is that your primary strategy should be to run away from the situation. If you can't run, then you resort to other tactics, but only enough to make sure you can run. No one principle can cover everything in a fight, but the basic strategy of "defend and retreat" is one of the best when it comes to protecting yourself.

Hmm, making unsupported statements instead of arguing your point, misrepresenting the definition of a word to support your side, refusing to address the points put forth by others--this is no longer a debate. I guess it was too much to hope for.

There can be no discussion with someone who states their beliefs instead than arguing their position, so I'll be moving on. I would say that you are mistaken on several points, but since science is merely another form of faith (faith in one's senses) there's really no reliable way of determining reality at all. I'll simply say that your arguments are logically flawed, and that by adhering to an article of faith instead of examining it, you limit yourself and all those you teach.

My own prejudices when it comes to self-defense are obvious, but I do my best not to let them blind me and at least attempt to back up my position with logic, rather than stating my opinions as fact, rhetorically. I hope your learn to see past your limitations, or at least, I hope they never cost you in a fight. They very easily could.

[Cain]

My own prejudices when it comes to self-defense are obvious, but I do my best not to let them blind me and at least attempt to back up my position with logic, rather than stating my opinions as fact, rhetorically. I hope your learn to see past your limitations, or at least, I hope they never cost you in a fight. They very easily could.

They haven't yet, but that's because I try to get out of the situation before it comes to violence. I'll eat the machismo lack, because it works.

I mean, let's look at some of the common self-defense situations, and the best responses:

Mugging. Give up your damn wallet! Fighting over a few bucks is stupid.

Bar Brawl: Defuse the situation. Buy the guy a beer, then leave as soon as possible.

Child being kidnapped: Run and scream! A child trying to take out a full-grown adult is futile.

Rape Defense: Run and scream some more! Only fight if the guy has you trapped, and then you need to break free and run for help.

These are the real situations a person's going to face, and only in one of them does physically attacking an opponent make sense. And even then, running and screaming for help is preferable.

Opinion? These are stone-cold facts, acknowledged by many self-defense experts as the best way to handle the situation. Don't buy into the macho BS; if you want to defend yourself, learn to run away.

[Critias]

...if you want to defend yourself, learn to run away.

Unless you also want to defend your property (perfectly legal and, as such, agreed by political consensus as ethical, in many states), the property of others (likewise), or the safety and well being of those around (certainly likewise), instead of only worrying about your own skin. And unless you don't have anywhere to run, aren't a fast runner, unless your assailant might be armed with a gun, might be a fast runner, himself...and on and on and on. IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST ANSWER. STOP SAYING IT IS, PLEASE.

You might want to hand your wallet over, for instance, and work on the assumption that because the man with the knife said "give me your wallet or I'll kill you," he really did mean the or part, and gamble your life on the fact that he's a criminal thug of his word. If, to you, that's the way to go -- good for you, but don't act like it's anything but opinion, and don't act like people never get killed after capitulating with violent robbers. Read up on the FBI crime statistics and compare injuries when the robbery victim resists versus when they don't (and when they resist with a weapon, in particular).

Once someone's decided to threaten me and mine over the contents of my wallet, well, I know I'm not going to assume they're worth trusting with my life, so that I'll meekly hand if over and trust them to leave quietly once they've gotten what they came for. I live in a state where I don't have to, so your mileage may vary, but there's a reason I practice holding my wallet out with one hand, and drawing from concealment for a double-tap with my other.

Your "best responses" might be your best responses, but they're not the same for everyone. I can find just as many self defense experts that will suggest a more aggressive response, and we can just whip out our e-penises and see who can cite more references...or you can just admit that you're doing nothing but stating your opinions, which may or may not be valid for everyone, equally.

[Cain]

Read up on the FBI crime statistics and compare injuries when the robbery victim resists versus when they don't (and when they resist with a weapon, in particular).

I have. I've read home invasion statistics in particular, which the NRA couldn't even spin into making an attack better than calling 911. But if you have better numbers, please provide them!

[psychophipps]

On a less controversial note, Sijo Emperado is one of the acknowledged founders (as in plural) of Kajukembo. Some of his students went on to be highly recognized in their own right, such as Al (Emperado's nephew who, interestingly enough, wasn't really into the martial arts at first. However, when your deathmachine uncle picks you up for lessons every day... Emperado is also the reason that some forms, like Wun Hop Kun Do, of Kajukenbo have some Philippine flavor) and Mark Dacascos (who is reportedly , sad to say, kind of a wuss). Instead of naming a school after them, their students call their art "Wun Hop Quen Do", with the Dacascos name tossed in here and there for PR purposes. Basically, rather than breach ettiquette and steal someone's name, you use the name of their style in their honor.

There, corrected it and added a few comments I have heard over the years. Not to knock Dacascos (who I have trained with and respect highly) or Emperado (who I have heard many a good tale about) but there were and are other people involved in the process of making Kajukenbo and keeping the ball rolling.

To be honest, there isn't all that much to be proud of in Kajukenbo's true history. Most of the founders were thugs from the Palama ghetto, many were violent drunks, and even fewer of these "Masters" contributed much to the martial arts than making a bunch of ruthless streetfighters who went on to teach a bunch of people that really shouldn't have been taught how to hurt other people better in the 1960s and 70s. Yay? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

[Cain]

Point taken. The reason I chose Kajukembo was because it's relatively famous (thanks to Mark Dacascos) and it has a clear lineage, unlike the Bruce Lee and Ed Parker messes. Particularly in the case of Bruce Lee: walk into a Jeet Kune Do school, and you have no guarantee that you'll learn a single Bruce Lee technique.

In martial arts, lineage is important. But putting your master's name on the billboard shows just as much insecurity as if he demanded it. Let the style, and your skill, speak for itself.

[Ard3]

Particularly in the case of Bruce Lee: walk into a Jeet Kune Do school, and you have no guarantee that you'll learn a single Bruce Lee technique.

True. My JKD instructor told that you can get "official JKD-Instructor license" in 8 hour course.
I mean, how much can you learn in 8 hours? Let alone be instructor...

I dont know details about Bruce Lee and Ed Parker mess, but there are lots on instructors with no real certification to teach JKD.

Luckily my instructor does.

[Cain]

Not to insult your instructor, but there are two schools of JKD: JKD "Classic", which focuses on the core are Bruce used at the time of his death, and JKD "Concepts", which tossed the traditional techniques in favor of "what works". You will not learn the same thing between the two schools, even though they have the same name. I know I'm going to piss off a lot of JKD students by saying this, but in a "concepts" school, you're more likely to get a MMA experience than a Bruce Lee technique.

[Critias]

It shouldn't piss anyone off, and I really don't think it'd even piss Bruce off if he was aliev today. Mixed Martial Arts is really just furthering the idea that he...hrm, not that Bruce conceived (because I'm sure there were plenty of folks mixing and matching martial arts long before he came along), but maybe that he forged a path for into the mainstream. "Use what works" was more important to him than "do things the way I do them," so I really don't think he'd be offended at someone pointing students to an MMA school instead of folks diligently practicing what Bruce did almost forty years ago. Folks looking to learn "Bruce Lee JKD" can go find those sort of schools, people looking to learn what JKD has evolved into can be more than happy at a regular old MMA school.

My own JKD/Escrima instructor studied alongside Dan Inosanto, and has certification, etc, right from Dan. He tends to teach us stuff the way he was taught it, because that's what he's the most comfortable with (so a "classic" school) -- but our assistant instructor has studied an assortment of different martial arts throughout his life (and was a combatives instructor in the USMC for a time), so he's right there to show us different ways to accomplish what our main instructor shows us, little variations on a move, a nasty follow-up, etc, etc...so that overall we're left with the option, with almost everything we learn, and it's up to us what we want to take away with us from class. I feel pretty lucky that one's big on the martial, one's a little more focused on the art, and we get to hear them both.

[Ard3]

My school is Conceps branch.

From Wikipedia: Link, branches section.

The JKD Concepts branch, whose proponents include Dan Inosanto, Richard Bustillo, Larry Hartsell; these groups strive to continue the philosophy of individual self-expression through re-interpretation of combat systems through the lens of Jeet Kune Do, under the concept that it was never meant to be a static art but rather an ongoing evolution, and have incorporated elements from many other martial arts into the main fold of its teachings (most notably, grappling and Kali / Escrima material) based on the individual's personal preferences and physical attributes. The entire JKD "system" can be described through a simple diagram, and the concepts can then be applied to a variety of contexts in a "universal" way.

Emphasis mine. Yes, we take what is useful, but if traditional techniques works, no need to toss it.

Critias: May I ask who is your instructor?

[Critias]

Not at all, check your inbox (we're getting far enough off topic we might as well take it over to PMs).

[psychophipps]

To get back on track, as good as the instructor in the OP was, I get the feeling that the idea of the adept is that an adept within their niche would make that guy look like a punk. The addition of true "magic", as portrayed in the SR universe, would give an adept insights into the ways of motion, forces, and the timing of the flow of the energies of the combatants that the master in the OP couldn't hope to match.