How Stuff Works: Verbal Self Defense

Must find out more about this George Thompson guy -someone mentioned him earlier and i musdt confess, I simply assumed that they mixed names up

Anyway, we seem to agree on the whiole -just using different terms.

My key point is that gratutative attackers -who might confront you in a pub 'for no reason' are not easy to empathise with and that the confrontation may not last long enough for you to assess their reasons -a simple yes/no "is he going to hit me?" is far more straightforward. Accept that he has chosen you to displace his troubles (it doesn't matter why) and deal with it.

 

True, they might not be easy to empathise with, but you can still do it. It depends on what verbal set up they use. Having an understanding that it is a set up and he is looking for a trigger can help. Afterall if they were that intent on attacking you, they wouldn't confront, they would just do it.

With practice analysing a persons real intent can be as quick as "is he going to hit me", but I see where you're coming from.

 

Yeh, giving him an 'honorable' exit etc.

I'm no psychologist but many 'typical' gratuitous aggressors seem to use the pre-fight verbal as a confidence builder. So just because they start verbal doesn’t mean that they didn’t intend to deck you right from before the verbal started.

There are so many things to be doing once you suddenly find yourself in a confrontational situation:
1. Fence up, control the space.
2. Manage the fence (setting triggers, adjusting etc).
3. Looking/listening for signs of imminent attack (again, setting triggers etc).
4. Hiding visible signs of adrenaline stress (voice, knees etc).
5. Looking around for other threats, escape routes etc.
6. Trying to de-escalate the situation / stall for time.

…and that’s before you start trying to understand his true motives.

For me, at a theoretical level, his motives have only two material values:
a. He intends to physically harm me
b. He is bluffing and I am relatively safe.

 

The pre-fight blurb may be an attempt to bolster confidence. May particular take is that it is set up as a trigger as, naturally speaking, humans find it difficult to iniate an attack out of nothing. This of course does preclude trained people, those with mental health problems and drug induced psychosis.

Ever noticed how many verbal confrontations begin with a question or have a questioning tone about them? The would be assailent is looking for justification for his actions. This is difficult becuase his biology is telling him that to fight is not a great idea, even though his "higher" brain functions are telling him it is a good idea.

The list you produce is quite accurate, but notice how, with practice, you are able to do this quite easily, leaving your brain to function on other things.

 

Agreed. But a lot of it comes with experience of real situations. Bouncers (etc) build up experience and so become 'naturals' and find the motive aspect quite easy -often just based on experience of similar situations. But most martial artists and 'victims' don't have that experience base. Training can be done very robustly. But the motive of the attacker is hard to drill in the hall.

 

I disagree. While individual circumstances will vary, I think motives are relatively easy to categorize:

1. Percieved slight (spilled beer, stolen bar stool, dinged fender, bumped into on street)

2. Physical gain (mugging, pan handling, purse snatch)

3. Domination (rape, beat up for the sake of beating you up)

4. Sociopathic (random attack, no motive)

By working within these categories, you can then generate scenarios that can be roll played out, using various methods, to simulate various situations.

What is required, and needs to be part of any robust self defense program, is studying preditor behavior and attacker profiles in order to correctly act out the situations. The person in the role of the attacker needs to understand and use the basic mannerisms and tools of an mugger (for example).

- Matt

 

Sorry Matt, whilst what you are saying sounds senisble, I don't think that it mirrors reality=
1. That is not the real reason. The perceived slight is the excuse. More likely the aggressor is displacing the real source of their troubles onto the victim -who is their vent of frustration.

2. In part -but on the main addiction driven. A very irrational attacker indeed.

3. Agreed, 4 agreed.

5 (added). Pier pressure/gang mentality -i.e. casual involvement in fights etc.

BUT, how do you tell them apart? How do you learn to tell them apart? What is the use of telling them apart?

If they are mugging you it is most likely cause 2.

If you are in a pub it is most likely cause 1 or could be 43,4 or 5.

 

Understood, but I think your model is overcomplicating things. Allow me to explain why: what we can only know is immediate cause and effect. So because of that, we need to work within the now. However our techniques can encompass the further scenario:

While aspects like displacement are valid motivators, they are not necessarily direct motivators. In fact, in the case of displacement, the agressor may, and is probably not, aware that it is going on. Which makes it great from an analytical point, but almost useless from a self defense analysis point. There isn't necessarily enough time to figure out what the person is acting on. Nor is the attacker necessarily in a mindset that will allow for the defusing of the situation even if you had the knowledge.

However, your verbal self defense strategy can take these types of situations into account. For example in the spilled drink scenario, you can initially offer to buy the person another drink or find another connective factor to defuse the tension. My self defense instructor tells the story of defusing a group confrontation by noticing that one of the aggressors was wearing a Metallica shirt and shifting the conversation to that with what Blauer would consider a "pattern inturrupt distraction."

Some, not all. And the addition is a secondary driver that would be classified under the sociopathic category. The immediate driver is to get money. Whether that's for drugs or to feed one's family, it doesn't change the need.

I'd still categorize this under one of the pervious with domination as a secondary motivator. While the attacker may be going along for the ride, there's still, again an immiediate driver for the group behavior.

You go based on scenario. And you start the confrontation where it begins. If your simulating a mugging, the person might walk up to you as if on the street and ask to bum a smoke, or a hand out, or simply for the time. And like in some muggings, the situation would escalate from there. Or perhaps they will produce a weapon and immediately demand money.

Scenario dictates the immediate cause and that's got to be what your concerned about first and foremost. Anything beyond that, like many weapons disarms, is too complex to be useful under pressure.

- Matt