When do you step in?

It's exactly like dogs barking.

It's a social instinct to protect territory in a way that has much less risk of injury than just wading into a fight.

I think you're trying to put too much clarity and logic into it; it's not a thought process. It's instinctual, and the person doing it may well be thinking to themselves "I'm gonna smash his teeth in", but it takes triggers for people to actually damage others, generally speaking.

You see that kind of dance a lot with idiots who go around trying to start trouble. They rarely just lamp someone randomly, there is a social exchange that has to take place to give them the "excuse" to get physical.

It takes two to tango, and knowing how to deny an aggressor the prompts they need to get physical is a very useful skill.

If you've worked the doors, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Fighting is often like a contract that the aggressor brow-beats the other party into agreeing to.

 

I must admit I don't like the cliche and goody two shoes side of SD/SP ....Yea it's right but at the end of the day everyone's human and we can only do our best so I think that depending on a persons mood and the situation ,you do whatever you do at that time and take the consequences. I could say I'll just smile or be relaxed and just not be bothered and I actually might be...but other times I might not be having a great day and rise to it...who knows. Everyone's the same in my opinion. Even smiling and being relaxed might make it worse.....the other guy or guys might find that offensive. And I say that knowing full well if I rise I don't think I'm some super fighter and it could end badly.

I disagree that a person approaching another is just posturing.....some people love to fight or just like kicking someone's head in or the challenge, these guys are out there and they are the ones who will approach other guys because they think they can ,either beat the other guy or want the challenge. The person approaching does not do it just to posture....not from my experience anyway. If you bAck down they feel good and dominant ,if you don't they get the fight they wanted and get to feel good about bullying and kicking your head in.
That's why you have to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.....more violent and intense than the attacker if it kicks off ,but not out looking for it and being a sound person in everyday life.

 

True. I just think that no one in the 95 per cent camp will approach another just to posture. They won't approach at all.

I agree with the other sentence too....but it's not real world in the sense that most are just living life's and not analysing situations so deeply nor is the time available to do so if it kicks off.
So yes, it's all good and correct but all the theory can simply be that...theory. It's not always realistic in life with human faults and varying situations for it to be applicable or as simple.

 

Simon, why do you feel it is helpful to categorise pathological aggression as separate from reactive and instrumental aggression?

Whether or not pathology is behind the behaviour, it still manifests as reactive or instrumental aggression.

Also, I agree with the sentiment of the 95% rule, but I really don't like the fact that 95% is a number pretty much plucked from the air, and the word "rule" is annoying.

 

Sure, I was just asking your opinion whether you think it is helpful to seperate pathology in terms of self-defence, seeing as it doesn't add or change anything in terms of action or legal ramifications for civilians, as far as I can see.

That wasn't directed at you, I realise you didn't come up with it. I was just thinking aloud.

 

I am technically in the 5% but have conditioned myself to be so - it's not always healthy though and you do pay a price emotionally for it

 

If you asked my wife she would say I was in the 5% but I pay a very different price for that.

 

Thanks.

It would be interesting to read jwt's thoughts on the subject.

Here is an interesting article by a professor of psychology that deals with both types of violence and group violence. The remit goes much wider than people in developed nations would normally consider self-defence, but it is easy to extrapolate to smaller scales, eg. a group of normally placid office workers kicking someone on the ground on a work night out.

http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/4/mccauley.htm

 

I know a fair few people who work with addicts and people with mental health issues. As far as I know they get very little training of this kind. The general idea is to extract yourself and phone the police. Though they will have training regarding interview and negotiation techniques, I understand that little to none of it is specific to a direct and present physical threat.

Sadly, there isn't the money for it.

 

Who is the 'we' in that? Where does this percentage come from ...what else is out there back this up? Other research? Is it not a bold, blanket statment to say that these other people are sociopaths?

I think its healthy to ask these thing. My experience is that people who like to fight are not all sociopaths. Many are capable of empathy and can be sound people. I would say the percentage is higher.
Geoff Thompson himself engaged in fights so is he saying he is a sociopath?

 

I think you'd have to ask Mr. Thompson about that.

But here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Psychopathy/Sociopathy:
"A 2008 study using the PCL:SV found that 1.2% of a US sample scored 13 or more out of 24, indicating "potential psychopathy". The scores correlated significantly with violence, alcohol use, and lower intelligence. A 2009 British study by Coid et al., also using the PCL:SV, reported a community prevalence of 0.6% scoring 13 or more. The scores correlated with younger age, male gender, suicide attempts, violence, imprisonment, homelessness, drug dependence, personality disorders (histrionic, borderline and antisocial), and panic and obsessive–compulsive disorders."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Antisocial Personality Disorder:
"ASPD is seen in 3% to 30% of psychiatric outpatients. The prevalence of the disorder is even higher in selected populations, like prisons, where there is a preponderance of violent offenders. A 2002 literature review of studies on mental disorders in prisoners stated that 47% of male prisoners and 21% of female prisoners had ASPD. Similarly, the prevalence of ASPD is higher among patients in alcohol or other drug (AOD) abuse treatment programs than in the general population (Hare 1983), suggesting a link between ASPD and AOD abuse and dependence."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

 

While not a fan of the 95% rule (it's not a term or framework I would use) the figures for the numbers of functional violent sociopaths in society are not unique to Thompson. Without browsing through my library to find precise references you can find similar figures in Grossman's work and I believe that of Hare. One thing that should be borne in mind when referring to any work is the date when it was written as research does move on.

Not all sociopaths like to fight. Not all people that like to fight (and fighting is a very broad term) are sociopaths. However it would be more accurate to describe all those that like/enjoy inflicting pain/physical damage on others as exhibiting sociopathic tendencies (despite which they may be able to function in society) although not all sociopaths are capable of doing this and depending on the particular disorder (under the broad spectrum of sociopathy) not all sociopaths like/enjoy inflicting physical pain on others.

 

I am in a different camp though....people all over the world manage to not get into fights and get out of situations by simply being sensible, maybe humourus, humble etc etc....yet dont have self defence training. Its not that difficult if your a sound, down to earth person. If it kicks off even after that, then non of that theory is going to help now, and the guy wanted a victim anyway...your on your own now.

Sometimes if someone starts on you,,,so what if you give it them back?...everyone has bad days as we are humans even if we know all this stuff. Every SD instructor who is actualy capable and has experience and can do the business has done exactly the same.

 

I see.
So the 95 percent rule refers to sociopaths?

I took it that Simon was using it to say 95 percent of people dont like to fight and 5 percent do. Those 95 percent will approach just to posture but not actual want a fight. I disagree and think that they will not approach at all and that the figure will be less than 95 percent. I am not referring to sociopaths at all.

 

"Our bodies our designed with a survival mechanism that does
not take into consideration what others might think about
our actions, only what is right for survival of the species. That’s
why we have the 95% rule. At times of confrontation 95%
of us (the other 5% are classed as sociopaths) will have the
instinct to run away to protect the evolution of the species.
We won’t know this on a conscious level of course, we’ll
only know that we want to run and not why. This is where the downward spiral of self-doubt begins and subsequently,
in the aftermath the self-esteem falls flatter than a shadow."

I really don't think it's something anyone could put a definite figure on.

Some people will just fight. Some people will just posture. Some people will posture until they get the necessary reaction from their target to give them the social "excuse", or other triggers, necessary for them to fight. [Edit: and most people will do any of those depending on the situation.]