Reality for the masses

[Evad]

Good quote from Men in Black 1 "Individuals are smart. But people are stupid." Want proof, join a forum.

New topic suggestion.

What's the best way to introduce 'reality' to your training? How do you go about preparing for battle on the street where it really counts?

Without the obvious of just going out on the town for a little bar fightin'?

What approach should we use with students in class that are very insecure and 'nervous' about conflict, you know the young lady who takes 'krotty' to learn some confidence, or the young kid being bullied at school, how can we best teach cunning for these people in a fight?

How can this be accomplished safely and realistically and still avoid possible litigation? And regarding litigation...how can we train 'realistically' in class without inviting a lawsuit for 'excessive measures,' and also when we do put our training to use, how do we avoid becoming the 'bad guy' in court? You know the martial aritst with experience that beats the crap out of someone in self defense who has no background.

How should we deal kicks? Since most states catagorize kicks as assault with a deadly weapon; the foot?

Quote: "Better a Friend cut you down as a lesson, than an Enemy cut you down FOR GOOD."

[SevenStar]

There have been several threads on this, and Ryu has had some pretty good input on them. Do a search.

[David Jamieson]

"If you want to know sweet, you must taste bitter" -

In short, you cannot "teach" intent. You either have it, or you don't.

You cannot teach a rabbit to be a bear, you can only show it what a bear does and how, as a rabbit, you can avoid the damage the bear would inflict on you. :D

Leave the reality classes to the people who have the intent and the will to pursue that understanding.
You can't learn to swim if you don't enter the water. Period.

cheers

[Watchman]

In short, you cannot "teach" intent. You either have it, or you don't.

I disagree. I believe you CAN teach intent. However, each student at some point in the process MUST make a fundamental, sincere, conscious choice to bring their intent forward. Some folks just decide not to - they decide to limit their potential in lieu of "gentler" roads; they refuse to stretch their boundaries.

It is the task of the instructor to coach each person to the point where they can make the decision for themselves.

Athletic coaches teach "intent" all day long, and happen to be successful at it. It still comes down to each individual athlete to decide whether or not they will perfom on any given day.

[Becca]

How can this be accomplished safely and realistically and still avoid possible litigation? And regarding litigation...how can we train 'realistically' in class without inviting a lawsuit for 'excessive measures,' and also when we do put our training to use, how do we avoid becoming the 'bad guy' in court? You know the martial aritst with experience that beats the crap out of someone in self defense who has no background.

If they are sue happy, you can't. All you can do is cover your six and hope you don't get the judge that awarded the old lady lots of money for being too stupid to realize her steeming coffee was hot.:(

As far as how to avoid looking like the "bad guy" in court, just make sure you use it only in self-defence, stop as soon as the threat is gone, and try to use everything in your power to avoid having to use it in the first place. Let them land the first hit, not just tthe fisrt swing. If you take them down quik, but have a mark they caused, it will be very convincing that they started it, and you finished it in the most expediant means possible.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Evad
How should we deal kicks? Since most states catagorize kicks as assault with a deadly weapon; the foot?


WTF!?

:eek:

:confused:

[Evad]

Believe it or not in the USA, if you kick someone, chances are that in any given state it will be considered assault with a deadly weapon by default. Being a martial artist has naught to do with that measure. I have plenty of colleagues that are in various degrees of the criminal justice system, from lawyers, to the patrol guy, and the sad fact is, if you kick someone in self defense, you could face fealony charges for assault with a deadly weapon. Even if you are cleared of any charges stemming from the incident, you could be fined or face your own prosecution, stiff fines, or imprisonment depending on the severity of the instance.

It can even get so ridiculous as a student in class that gets kicked (and feeling humilated, intimidated, or hurt...whatever) while sparring could bring charges of aggravated assault, and assault with a deadly weapon (defined as seperate fealony's) to bear against the opponent and the school or premises at which the incident occured. I've seen this example happen to an instructor friend of mine at a different school, and as a result we had a contigency clause built into our waiver of liability forms that new students must sign before training or sparring in our school.

[Serpent]

That's just ridiculous. Do the waiver's actually carry any weight?

The US is so litigious that it's gone far beyond a joke. And, to be honest, I couldn't care less about the US. However, the sad thing is that this country seems to be slowly heading the same way. I hope they legislate against that kind of crap before it's too late.

[dezhen2001]

thank goodness i suck at kicking then :)

dawood

[Evad]

The waiver's have never been put to the test fortunately, although there is some pretty heavy language used that would stand in a court. Our lawyer wrote it for us, it wasn't one of those 'waivers for dummies' templates or anything.

The deterance lies in the fact that were aware of possible litigation. Most people that would be prone to doing so, see the waiver and therefore know that it won't be an easy win.

And your totally right about the litigation joke it sucks. But we here in the US are not the only ones plagued by it, I saw a recent lawsuit which took place in the phillipines where a lawyer suied a movie theatre because they started the movie he was in 4 minutes too late.

There is legislation in place but the sad thing is it's not very strong and has little support except by our conservative types, and they usually come under attack as just wanting to protect the rich, blah blah blah....whatever.

What country are you from?

[taijiquan_student]

"Let them land the first hit, not just tthe fisrt swing".

Yeah, that's a greeeat idea...The first thing I want to do when I'm under attack is stand there and LET the person/persons hit me. What a great idea. That way(assuming I don't get killed)I can have a mark on me (which I probably would have gotten anyway) to show the courts so they know that the bad guys started it.

[Fred Sanford]

how do we avoid becoming the 'bad guy' in court? You know the martial aritst with experience that beats the crap out of someone in self defense who has no background

learn a little about the law and escalation of force. It also helps to know what to say when talking to the police.


Believe it or not in the USA, if you kick someone, chances are that in any given state it will be considered assault with a deadly weapon by default.

I don't know about that, I think the circumstances would have a lot to do with it. If I kick someone below the waist, I think a lawyer would have a hard time pulling that one off. Then again if someone is on the ground and you repeatedly kick them in the head with a steel toed boot that's another story.

[Yung Apprentice]

I guess it depends what state you are in. Some states let people off the hook more then others. My state is o.k., for the most part. But there was this one story on the news that disturbed me.

Two masked men broke into a house, in an attempt to burglarise (lord help my horrible spelling!!!) his home. They beat him up, and shock him with a stun gun. He manages to get to his gun, and blow away one guy. The other guy flees his house, and the man chases him, shoot, and kills him. The man who was attacked was later convicted of murder charges.


I would love for the jury to put themselves in that man's position. You sit at home, minding your buisness, watching some t.v. while eating a little snack. Two guys rush you, beat you up, shock you, and start tearing up the house, and stealing stuff. You get to your gun, blow one guy away, the other guy, who now knows where you live, and you killed his partner, and knows you haven't seen his face because he's hiding behind a mask, tries to get away. You go after him, blow him away, for good reason too, because he would have more then likely came back for revenge, and you get sent to PRISON. I felt so sorry for that man.

[Merryprankster]

In short, you cannot "teach" intent. You either have it, or you don't.

Garbage. Intent can indeed be taught. All it takes is a commitment to it from the student as well as the teacher.

On waivers--My boxing coach was a lawyer and didn't believe in them. Said they were a waste of time (food for thought). On the other hand, it's a boxing gym. The guys who go in there to actually learn to box rather than just get a workout know what they are getting into. Apparently, all the person suing has to prove is that the experience was "above and beyond" what a reasonable person would expect. So if you are sparring in an MA class and somebody gets knocked out, if they can prove either negligence on the part of the supervisor (shouldn't have paired these two together because of 'x', should have been paying more attention to the progression of things, etc) or convince the judge that what they experienced was well out of what they were told they would experience or understood from the waiver/contract, then you've got problems.

Secondly, insurance companies won't waste time defending unless the claim is outrageous. They will almost always settle.

Finally, I know everybody *****es about our litigious society. Two comments:

1. Doesn't bother me a bit. It shows that people in the U.S. feel they have the ability to bring things before the courts and be heard. Equal access and treatment before the law. If people didn't think they could be heard fairly, they wouldn't bother.

2. Direct outgrowth of political correctness and zero tolerance policies.

[Becca]

Originally posted by taijiquan_student
"Let them land the first hit, not just tthe fisrt swing".

Yeah, that's a greeeat idea...The first thing I want to do when I'm under attack is stand there and LET the person/persons hit me. What a great idea. That way(assuming I don't get killed)I can have a mark on me (which I probably would have gotten anyway) to show the courts so they know that the bad guys started it.

I got to be good freinds with the CJ students and staff at colledge. I put this question to them once. That was their answer. Since my colledge usually only hires people with alot of backround in their field, that is a lot of reasurance to me.

And usually they will land the first hit if they are truely the attacker and you have not provoced them. If only two people were involved, each threw only one punch/volly, both are marched, and only one is still standing, then it is obvious that the still standing was fighting in self-defence. So long as the one not standing is not seriously hurt, that is.

As a Martial artist we are under the list of people who are expected to know and follow the rules of "reasonable force." If they just tap you of push you, you cannot get away with knocking them out. They must show intent by either drawing a weapon or hitting you with enough force to leave a mark. And if you could have avoided the attack, but didn't you may inadvertantly be seen as "egging them on."

**<shruggs>** Nobody said it was a perfect world. BTW, a visible red mark that may or may not leave a bruise is a visible mark. You should always call the cops and stay at the sceen of the attack untill they get there. Leaving is considered leaving the sceen of a crime and could inffer guilt or other charges.

[David Jamieson]

Garbage. Intent can indeed be taught. All it takes is a commitment to it from the student as well as the teacher.

Would you care to expand on how you can teach intent?

Intent is not mechanical or tangible, it is a combination of emotions and personal spirit. How can this be taught? Do you have a method that will result in steely intent?

Sure, you can tell a student "go for it", "really get in there" and provide encouragement that will foster the idea, But, I seriously don't believe you can teach it.

Intent is a state of mind, it is the mind and will in action.
How can you actually instill this is in someone?
How can you teach a state of mind? You cannot. You can merely try to spark it through your own example and whatever words you have to describe.

Intent is the fighters "heart", and when it comes to fighting spirit, you either have it, or you don't. I would be wary of anyone who claimed they can teach you an ethereal thing such as this. It can be fostered, liek I said and encouraged, but it cannot be manifest without it actually coming up from inside the person commiting the action.

Anyway, I would love to hear what the method is for teaching intent. particularly to a student who does not have the fighters heart.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Ah, semantics. We're talking about two different things. I apologize.

I define intent more narrowly--follow through. I term what you are talking about to be heart.

And I agree that heart cannot be taught per se. However, it comes in many different forms and you can change simply the desire to excel into "fighting spirit."

[apoweyn]

Kung Lek,


Intent is not mechanical or tangible, it is a combination of emotions and personal spirit. How can this be taught? Do you have a method that will result in steely intent?

I agree that it's not tangible, obviously. But mechanical? Isn't the entire discipline of psychology based on the notion that mental processes are mechanical? That causes yield repeatable effects?

If a woman is abandoned by her father in childhood and beaten by her first husband, there's a good chance that the result will be a fundamental distrust of men, which will manifest in any number of actions and attitudes, right? So while distrust isn't tangible either, it has been 'created' in a mechanical fashion. Cause and effect.


Sure, you can tell a student "go for it", "really get in there" and provide encouragement that will foster the idea, But, I seriously don't believe you can teach it.

Teaching something like that is probably going to require more than just telling them to "go for it." You're right. A student "going for it" is an action. What follows will go a long way, mechanically, in reinforcing the idea. What's the consequence of going for it? Success? Failure? Pain? Loss?

Isn't that the whole point of the progression in martial arts training? We work technique, then drills, then sparring, etc. Escalating the number of variables until we can approach something more closely resembling reality (admittedly, without ever really recreating reality).

The progression is designed to provide reinforcement. A student succeeds at each stage, in ever-decreasing levels of control, until (ideally) they're able to succeed in the least controlled environment available. Success at the previous level reinforces the act in the student's head, encouraging them to tackle the next level. Success at learning the technique prompts them to try it in drills. Success at the drills prompts them to try it in sparring. Success in sparring leads to...

I guess it's that blank that needs to be filled in next.


Intent is a state of mind, it is the mind and will in action.
How can you actually instill this is in someone?
How can you teach a state of mind? You cannot. You can merely try to spark it through your own example and whatever words you have to describe.

I believe that's overmystifying the mental processes involved. More to the point, I believe it's a harmful view. If you're not born with a "warrior spirit", what? You're screwed? You're just never going to be able to learn intent?

Life events teach us new states of mind all the time. Before my first girlfriend, I had no experience of depression. I knew sadness as a situational thing. But not depression as a state of mind. After that break up, I learned it. Simple cause and effect.

So if you can engineer the cause, why wouldn't there be an effect?


Intent is the fighters "heart", and when it comes to fighting spirit, you either have it, or you don't. I would be wary of anyone who claimed they can teach you an ethereal thing such as this. It can be fostered, liek I said and encouraged, but it cannot be manifest without it actually coming up from inside the person commiting the action.

But who's to say that it's not there in everyone? How do you determine who has this fighting spirit? How do you decide that you've looked hard enough for it and that it's genuinely not there? I don't even understand how you can determine its presence without believing that it's a mechanical process.


Anyway, I would love to hear what the method is for teaching intent. particularly to a student who does not have the fighters heart.

In all fairness, I will state up front that I haven't enacted a program like this. However:

Operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement. It's more than just being supportive. If a person gains something positive from an action or ceases to experience something negative, then that person is more likely to perform that action again in the future.

In more concrete terms, you teach student X to block a blow from a padded stick. You perform the stick strike over and over again. They perform the block. They start to feel comfortable with it. You speed up. They continue to be able to block the stick.

On to the drills. Now you're moving around. Maybe swinging the stick as part of a combination. More variables have been added. More to think about. Once the student gets used to those variables, however, they begin to succeed again. On to the next level.

Eventually, you're doing a freeform exercise. And this is where things frequently start to break down. The exercise has now gotten different enough from the original controlled lesson that it's no longer sufficient to stand there and go through the movement. You aren't "giving" the student the move anymore. They have to come and take it. If they do, all's well. If they don't, you can either shrug your shoulders and tell them they lack "fighting spirit" or you can teach them to perform the actions that will allow them to succeed and be reinforced.

In the case of the stick swing, it could be something as simple as a piece of forward footwork. In freeform stickwork, I don't generally want to stand there and let the opponent and his stick come to me. I want to wade in and snuff it at the source. That's not a natural response though, is it. There's nothing natural about walking in on an impact weapon. That runs precisely contrary to natural instinct. But I was made to do it. And it worked. So I was more willing to do it in the future.

Now, you could discount that whole thing by saying that, clearly, I had some sort of fighting spirit. But I believe that I had no more or less than anyone else. It was just engendered in the proper way. A good teacher is responsible for engineering exercises that bring those qualities out in a student.

Another of my favorites: Cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger had this idea that people are often contradictory. We hold one belief and yet act in a way that is inconsistent with that belief. Maybe I believe I deserve a bigger raise for my job performance. But I'm intimidated by conflict with my manager. So I don't push for it. That creates dissonance. My refusal to push for a raise is inconsistent with my belief that I'm worth it. So what changes? The behavior? Sometimes. But often, it's the mental experience that changes. I'll begin to come up with reasons why I did get what I deserved. Or ways in which I can improve so that next time, I'll be worth it. My internal belief has shifted to match my behavior rather than the other way around.

What that means (if you subscribe to the theory) is that if you teach a person to act with intent, they'll begin to feel that intent. Then action and belief are in accord. And if the teaching experience is set up properly, when they act, they'll be reinforced.

Don't you think that's part of what makes taiji an exercise in relaxation? Physically move in a relaxed way and the mental processes will follow.

Physically move in a way that reflects intent, reinforce that action properly, and see if it doesn't instill a sense of intent.


Stuart B.

[Merryprankster]

Ap,

What you're saying is, I think, learning something in a drill, then refining it in that drill, gives you the confidence to try it sparring--continued use gives you the confidence to judt DO it. You know the opening is there, you go for it, etc, yeah?

That's what I kinda meant that you can transform a desire for excellence into heart. But sometimes you have to nurture that desire into a don't quit attitude.

I know I didn't have that don't quit attitude until recently.

[David Jamieson]

Good arguments. But, you still cannot get inside someones head and give them intent.

you can drill and you can show technique and this is all done in the relative safety of instructional format.

what will happen to the persons will and confidence in a real life threatening scenario is completely dependent on their will and fortitude to use those tools, the mechanical tools of fighting.

You can perhaps draw out something from a person through encouragement and the process you use to transmit the techniques and the martial form. But you cannot say with any certainty what's gonna happen to that person in the moment of truth.

Merry-

It is not semantics, intent is just that, your mind and will in action. This can only be formed in the individual, it is intrinsic and not extrinsic.

Ap-

I do not believe that you have to be born with it. I believe that at the point of truth, you have it or you don't. You state more or less that our general attitudes are generated by what we are exposed to and I agree. How this exposure manifests itself is not black and white.

Some people open to their failures and learn, others close themselves and fail to deal with it and never become strong because of it. There are so many variables about how someone will deal with events in their life and how that manifests in attitude and spirit is different from one to the next.

You simply cannot "instill" this in a person. You can draw it out by giving them the tools they need, but in the end it's all the individual.

And besides, there is nothing more curious and mystifying than the mental process in a human being! We are unable to truly fathom the capabilities or to understand the limitations of the human mind as of yet. We can look at chemistry, we can look at patterns of recognition and hundreds of other psch models, but we ultimately just don't know 100% for sure what exactly it is that allows someone the will to do what they do.

cheers

[apoweyn]

Kung Lek,

Good points. Certainly, we don't know everything about how people will respond. At the same time, I don't think the human psyche is really an unknown wasteland either. We don't know everything, but we know a lot.

No, you can't give someone intent. What you can do is create an environment in which a person can find and explore their own sense of intent. If you do that while exposing the student to more and more variables (multiple attackers, knives, etc.), then I think you're fulfilling your role as the teacher.

Likewise, a psychologist can't go into someone's head and give them peace of mind. But they can create a set of conditions conducive to a person finding that in themselves. And that seems worth the effort to me.


Stuart B.

[Watchman]

I do not believe that you have to be born with it. I believe that at the point of truth, you have it or you don't. You state more or less that our general attitudes are generated by what we are exposed to and I agree.

Like I mentioned before, "intent" and the "fighting mind" is something the individual has, or does not have, at the moment of truth. They have it when they make the heartfelt decision to have it. It's not something an instructor can do for them - all I can do is conduct the training processes that they are involved in.

Those processes involve specific manners in which they are brought into an understanding of their own value and potential as human beings. When someone truly understands and accepts their inherent value, then "intent" happens by itself at the moment of truth. However, again, they must decide that value for themselves.

You can't "scientifically measure" potential performance, but you CAN set a track record of performing at 100% for your students. My wrestling coach in high school had this down to a science. He trained us to the point that giving 100% on the mat at "go time" was a given because it was something consistently asked of us AND we were held accountable to it.

Consistency and accountability are the key.


You simply cannot "instill" this in a person. You can draw it out by giving them the tools they need, but in the end it's all the individual.

Again, I agree. However, you CAN create the training processes necessary that will create a quantifiable response from the individual student that requires them to perform at 100%. When someone is consistently brought into that level of expectation, it will happen for itself. if it doesnt, it is because that individual consciously chose NOT to perform.

If you can't consistently and quantifiably train "intent" and "fighting mind" into folks, then someone should let all the military combat drill instructors know that they have been wasting their time for the past 4000 years.

[red5angel]

What's the difference between "sparking" intent in an individual and teaching it to them?

I am not so sure instilling "intent" or "spirit" in someone is all that hard, and it can definitely be done. If you don't believe it go through Marine Corp Boot ...
Like Fighting I think spirit can be circumstantial. There may be moments where the fire is just not there for you, or someone who appears not to have it suddenly fights for something like a rabid badger on a roid rage. I think everyone "has it" and I think it can be brought out in just about anyone. It may not be as reliable in some as in others but a little self confidence can go a long way.

Ap- "So while distrust isn't tangible either, it has been 'created' in a mechanical fashion."

I'm not sure I follow you with the whole mechanical psychology thing. I think the problem is I don't understand your use of the word "mechanical". I don't see the cause and effect of human psychology as being mechanical really by any means.

[Shaolin-Do]

****it
seems liek a really good thread... Dont have time to read it all tho. Didnt even finish your post apoweyn, but...
"You're just never going to be able to learn intent?"

You can learn intent, but not directly. It is manifested through experience.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,


I'm not sure I follow you with the whole mechanical psychology thing. I think the problem is I don't understand your use of the word "mechanical". I don't see the cause and effect of human psychology as being mechanical really by any means.

Well, you can call it what you want. I'm not particularly wed to the term "mechanical." My only point was that mental processes aren't isolated things. The fact that they're intangible doesn't make them untouchable. In fact, they're touched all the time. Circumstances have an effect on mental processes. Control the circumstances and you can affect (to some degree) the mental processes in an organized fashion.

The Marine Corp instilled habits in you, yeah? Reactions to certain situations. In a sense, that's programming. Nothing as basic as "if... then." Nor as unthinking. You still have thoughts and feelings about those things, obviously. But you react differently, through training, than you did before. And the differences aren't random. They're engineered to elicit a response that achieves a goal.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Didnt even finish your post apoweyn, but...

I'm not going to promise you that it would be worth your time.

:)

[red5angel]

Ap, no problem on the verbage, I guess the term mechanical just sort of threw me in that context because I understood what you were saying.
What the marine corp instilled in me is exactly what I was talking about. I always had fighting spirit, comes from growing up the way I did, however I knew some guys who did not going in, and did coming out. Every good soldier knows however that at anytime anyone could drop the ball, it's just part of being human. I could basically agree that some people have it more reliably then others but I have a hard time agreeing that it cannot be taught.
To me it's a lot like the whole Qi thing. So far, from what I have seen "Qi" is mostly just a really good level of body control. There is no mystical power or supernatural (whatever that is) energy involved, just a real good understanding of your body and what it can do.

[apoweyn]

Yeah, I knew you knew what I was on about. Mostly I just meant that behavior was mechanical in that it adheres to observable rules of cause and effect (as opposed to being an unfathomable mystery).

[ZIM]

I need to read those more carefully, but just one thing to add to it:

You can't teach intent or heart, nope- you can only help them to find it. Its a matter of time and planning on the teacher's part though. Boot camps can do it in 2 months or so- even if it doesn't always take. An instant way to find it is to try to smother someone with a pillow- when they smack you down, just remember to say "good- thats what i want to see from now on". ;)

Then out comes the lawsuits...:rolleyes: :p

[Merryprankster]

Kung Lek, I disagree. A person can have a will to win, and the heart to see that through. But, because of personal styles, etc, might not have great follow-through on their execution. To me, intent is not a heart issue, it's an execution thing. When Rhadi Ferguson throws, he throws like he's trying to elevate a 900 lbs man. Lloyd knocked himself out because he went for that flying triangle with the intent to lock up and finish. Both have heart, both have intent behind their execution. Intent to me, is more about imposing your will on the other guy. Heart is more about being able to gut it out when the going gets tough.

So we WERE having a semantics issue.

All great competitors have a will to win. This is why I was a very good high school wrestler. All great champions have a will to prepare to win--which is why I was not a champion high school wrestler.

I lost heart in the most important portion--practice. But I changed my desire to excel into heart. And that was kind of my point. All a person needs is a hunger to be the best they can be and you can nurture and foster that into "heart."

[red5angel]

MP, wouldn't you say that having "heart" is throwing like you are throwing a 900lb man, or shooting a move like it was going to be the finish?
I know from my own martial arts experience in the CMA that intent although seemingly means a couple of different things, usualy ends up tying them al together. For me it means doing it with every inch of your being. Small example would be punching, if you have the intent to destroy your target in spirit and the follow through mechanically to deliver the energy needed to accomplish that then you have proper intent.

[ZIM]

KL- are you identifying a lack of heart or a resistance to hurting/killing another human being? I haven't run across anybody who would not strike out when their life is threatened, but i have run across plenty who have a severe resistance to hurting another person.

Ap-
nice summary on psych. To add more, you need to go into reward/punishment schedules... ;) There are some links, if you want them, along the same lines.

The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. (http://www.killology.com/art_teach_methods.htm)

Behavioral psychology, with its subsets of behavior modification and operant conditioning, is a field that's ripe for use and abuse in the realms of violence, peace, and conflict. (http://www.killology.com/article_behavioral.htm)

In general, I understand the problem thusly: in training the techniques as a behavioral response, you aren't precisely generating 'heart'. OK. But, aren't the MAs generally less emotion-based? Don't Boxers [who very much value 'heart'] use behavioral conditioning?

I seem to remember one boxer trained by leaping on 2 boxes, first a lower one, then to the floor, then up twice as high. This was to train his musles so when he stumbled, he would bounce back...plyometrics or behaviorism?

[Merryprankster]

Red,

Nope. I know a bunch of guys with great intent.

Until they are losing. Or until they get tired after 30 seconds.

[David Jamieson]

What's the difference between "sparking" intent in an individual and teaching it to them?

The difference is cause and effect vs methodology of transmission.

Any number of things can spark "intent" to "do" something. It does not have to be in the format of a lesson. Somebody cutting you off in traffic can be a spark that will lead you to intent to do something about it or not. Doing and not doing are both intention lead.

Intent is a layer over all of our cognitive actions. we do not cognitively act without intent. Even if recognition is in a split second.

Mind and will are the engine of intent.

One can have the intent of being the very best fighter they can be. Which in turn you set your mind to and you get through the hard aspects by sheer will. :)

Intent in terms of the fighters heart or spirit is indeed about control. The mechanisms of physical control can be and are martial arts or martial techniques. To trains these tools will aid in your ability to manifest into reality what your intent is.

Zim- yes, a person can intend to not cause physical damage and through intention control a situation without causing physical damage.

A person can also intend to cause severe damage.

That moment of setting to with ones intentions is strictly an individual choice and experience. Mind and will can only be pointed at and, a template for proper intention can be shown but not instilled, this is based only on the knowledge and experiences of the person trying to convey how they believe you should act in a given situation. But then, is it really mind and will? Or is it ethics? The lessons of anothers experience, while helpful is not the same as personal experience. The greater lesson is to be had from the actuality of your own actions.

You can teach ethics, as they are arbitrary guidelines of social behaviour. You can teach the tools of everything from fighting to persuasion to what have you in the arts and sciences and everything else. This still doesn't amount to the intent of a person in the moment.

cheers

[ZIM]

Ok, I'm right on the razor's edge of getting what you're saying here. I think its another semantics issue.....? In a sense, it looks like you're saying its values that make the difference. But on the other, nope...

Just to very quickly define how I use these terms:

fight/flight/freeze- first response, 'will they fight?' issue. Hard-wired

intent- what degree of damage they're habituated to doing, how they do it, what thei'r will is [going psycho? loss of control. Staying controlled? willful intent] Skill is the major part of this area, so it can be learned

heart- refusal to bow out, give up, or quit for any reason. AKA hard headed, stubborn. conditioning is part of that, so are psychological barriers.

i suppose 'esteem', 'morale', or esprit de corps would belong in there somewhere. if you don't have the above definition for heart, then these must suffice. And here's the marines, too: you don't fight A marine, you fight THE marines. Even if its only one guy...

PS- I take it back- I have met ppl who wouldn't fight, or would take beatings rather than fight back immediately. Hmmm. thats got me thinking.... I mean, they're the ones who need training!

I think the trick is to get the flight/freezers to learn to switch fast into intent....

[Becca]

Zim-

intent- what degree of damage they're habituated to doing, how they do it, what thei'r will is [going psycho? loss of control. Staying controlled? willful intent] Skill is the major part of this area, so it can be learned

Agreed with everything you said but this. Intent is what you had in mind when you attack/refused to respond/ran, ect. It can be effected by training and state of mind, but mostly it is based on ones own personal experiences and temprement.

If you've got a hot temper and feel like you are being threatened, you're gonna go off on the dude. If you're timid, you'll likely run at the first sight of trouble. If you're a bit repressed and don't think much of yourself, you'd probably just sit and take it.


What's the difference between "sparking" intent in an individual and teaching it to them?

Have to agree with KL on this one. Depending on your "type" anything can set you off. Butteaching intent means watching the student to figure out what motivates them and what they would do, then tailoring a system to redirect this, to give them a diferent set of experiances to draw from, if you will. Once you get that, it is as simple as drilling them 'till they don't think of anything but the desired responces.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Evad
What country are you from?

Australia these days.

[Goldenmane]

This seems to be a thread dealing with some complex issues... as such, I'm just going to randomly dip into it and say whatever comes to mind. Please forgive me if it seems structurally incoherent.

I agree with much of what Ap said regarding the teaching/sparking of intent... and I'll throw something out there that is probably going to be controversial and at the least is walking close to the line.

To my mind, every human (like every other creature) has built in at some deep level self preservation. The fight-or-flight response, for example, is just that... fight OR flight. Everyone has the capacity for both. What this means is that behavioural manipulation (similar to that used by various armed forces) can be used to shift people toward choosing one over the other in given circumstances.

So therefore if you want to train a killer, who will kill without thought at the least provocation, then you can if you understand how to manipulate a person during their formative years and beyond. If you want to train someone into running away all the time, you can. If you want to teach someone to behave according to certain rules, you can.

The biggest difficulty that arises when someone tries to do this (e.g. an army) on a large scale is that they are operating on a large scale. There is no (or little) attention paid to the focus of the conditioning in terms of the individual. Hammer a square peg into the round hole and with enough perseverance the corners will come off and they'll go into the hole... but if you spend more time slowly shaving them down with a spokeshave and talking gently to them, they'll end up round and proud to be round, and loving it.

So ultimately the most effective way to spark intent in a person in terms of fighting is to play on the principles that brainwashing does. It works for cults, it will work if you put your mind to it for your students.

The problem is that you then end up with a cult, if you're not careful. Surely there has to be a middle ground somewhere. doesn't there?

Maybe, maybe not. Is there necessarily anything wrong with the cult idea? Human history, indeed animal history, is replete with examples of cult-like behaviour. Witness the wolf pack, where every member obeys the will of the alpha, or any other animal that operates on a social structure.

Humanity has acted on a cult-type structure for most of its history. The idea of the individual acting alone has for the most part gone by as myth or legend, up until recent times. Even Bruce Lee was considered a phenomenon, and made a huge impact because he preached the individualist approach... and that wasn't too long ago. Jesus was nailed to a lump of wood, ostensibly, for the same crime. The majority of human history has rested upon people doing what they are told to do by the stronger individual.

You could say that those who blindly follow such leaders (Bruce and Jesus not exempt) are reinforcing the cult aspects of human behaviour. Funny that people who are vocal against such things become the focus for them.

Aside from that, which is really just an idea I'm trying out, I think I'll hush for now. Except to say this:


Success at learning the technique prompts them to try it in drills. Success at the drills prompts them to try it in sparring. Success in sparring leads to...

...trying it in combat.

It's the way it has always been done, and the only way I can see it working. The closest you can come to readying someone for combat is to roleplay the combat.

Most people won't agree to it, though, so I can understand why teachers can sometimes refuse to teach people. Were I a teacher and aiming at teaching people to fight, I doubt I would find one prospective student in a thousand who wanted to undergo such things.

Hell, I didn't, initially.

[apoweyn]

Cheers to Zim and Goldenmane. I'll have to check out those links, Zim.

And to Kung Lek. I think we're probably circling around the same point. Just on slightly different sides of it. In any event, well said.


Stuart B.

[No_Know]

"...the young lady who takes 'krotty' to learn some confidence, or the young kid being bullied at school, how can we best teach cunning for these people in a fight?"

Listen to their situations and come-up with counter strategies relevant to build of repeat attackers~.

"How can this be accomplished safely and realistically and still avoid possible litigation?"

Talk. Grasping concepts---understanding.

" And regarding litigation...how can we train 'realistically' in class without inviting a lawsuit for 'excessive measures,'"

Have people face off and repeatedly notified that the person across from them could possible do great damage in less than a second. Faced off with that awareness is reality. No litigation (scaring; psyche damage?... not normal litigation :-) ).

" and also when we do put our training to use, how do we avoid becoming the 'bad guy' in court? You know the martial aritst with experience that beats the crap out of someone in self defense who has no background."

Teach talk until they strike or attack...you don't want to do this you want us to go our seperate ways... Also teach, if they can't don't hurt you don't hurt them. Stop/intimidate the attack(er); reason that it is senseless to fight--get in trouble; no use in my breaking your legs or fingers so that you are crippled...

"How should we deal kicks?"

Use knees. Hit with the calves. Teach to knock things (in environment) with kicks. Let the objects hit the agressor.

" Since most states catagorize kicks as assault with a deadly weapon; the foot?"

To many inflexible legged people if you hit with the bottom of your foot that is a stomp. And the recipient is downed. The weioght of the body runs~ to the bottom of the foot (foot to the ground) Between total bodyweight and a hard place to a standard ear might be perceived as squish-ish--lethal--felony--intent to kill.

Intent taught. If it can't be taught and you've seen it in others or showed it to others, then it seems it might already be inherant potential in the Human being. As you or those with Intent have come to have it perhapse it can be realized in others. Brought out with correct understanding or some-such.

Perhaps some might say some-such.