Fight or Flight Survival Response

To oversimplify, the 'fight or flight' response occurs when people undergo extreme stress, normally in the context of facing danger.  It's an evolutionary response, which, amongst other things, causes a massive adrenaline dump, which temporarily makes you stronger, and more able to fight or to run away. It also desensitizes your pain centers, making you more apt to make it through whatever you are facing.  There's a bunch of other physiological things that occur, but that's the substance of the concept.

John Coles wrote an interesting post on his blog on the fight or flight response.  Read it here.

In previous posts, I've touched on the fight or flight response, the survival mechanism and the adrenaline dump that occurs during combat or extreme stress.  It's important to incorporate some form of stress induced training to your regimen, and to understand what may or may not happen to you.

Equally important, and often overlooked, is understanding that your attacker may be experiencing all these same things, making them temporarily stronger and more resistant to pain.

So what happens when the fight or flight response doesn't kick in?  And why wouldn't it?

First off, it's a complex issue.  So many things are happening 'behind the scenes' in you brain, that it's pretty tricky to figure out all the whys and hows.

Next, it's important to note that the same person may react differently to the same stimuli on any given day.  So one day, the response might kick in at the slightest whiff of danger, and another it might wait until an attack is underway, or maybe after.  Or even not at all.

There are very real advantages and disadvantages to experiencing the adrenaline dump brought about by the 'fight or flight' response.  Following are just a few of both:


Advantages:

Increased strength
Increased speed
Increased tolerance to pain
Increased endurance
 

Disadvantages:


Loss of fine motor skills
Auditory exclusion
Tunnel vision
Distortion of time


Without the response,  you are more likely to intelligently respond and recognize threats and plan and identify options,   The irony is that, by experiencing the response, you could arguable be better equipped to carry out that plan or escape.

Brains or brawn, too bad you can't always have both.


Can you overcome or prevent the 'fight or flight' response?

Yes and no.

Training can reduce or eliminate the response.  Repeated exposure to simulated situations de-sensitizes you from the effects of the response.  This is only true of serious training.  If your mind isn't in the game, it's just playing around.

For military, law enforcement and security, training is developed to over-ride the stress response, or at least mitigate its effects.  This is where stress induced training methodologies can be useful.

More traditional martial arts training can do the same thing.  This can be a double edged sword though, especially for people who have never been exposed to real violence.  It can backfire.

Take a martial artist who has never seen or experienced any real or disturbing violence.  This person trains for a while, and feels pretty good about their skill level.

Now, this person gets attacked.  Since their minds have experience hundreds or thousands of attacks in the dojo, they don't get the immediate adrenaline 'fight or flight' dump.  Their attacker may be jacked up, but they are as cool as a cucumber. Until their response/defense doesn't work.  Wait a sec!  This has always worked in class, and it's not working now!  Oh Sh_ _!  And I'm hurt, I'm bleeding!

Now the panic sets in, the response kicks in, but it may be too late.  If it had kicked in a bit sooner, they may have been able to get away or fight back enough to gain the advantage.

Some will posit that we should never try to overcome this natural response. There's some strength to this argument for the majority of folks, but this is not always realistic or advisable, especially referring those tasked with making legal use of force response decisions.

The other reason to train for both scenarios is the variable nature of your own response.  What if you don't recognize someone as a threat, but they turn out to be?  You might not get the benefits, or the associated physiological responses until after the encounter has ended.

So you need to train for both scenarios:

1.  Instant 'fight or flight' response
2.  Delayed - begins during an encounter

It is for this very reason that I stress the importance of learning effective self defense techniques that take into account both scenarios.  In my Mind the Gap series, I discuss this in greater detail.  For true, survival self defense for the vast majority of people, the techniques must work in both cases.  There is no adjusting for adrenaline.  You can never know, with absolute surety, when or even if, the 'fight or flight' response will activate.

For military, law enforcement and security, you need to train differently for both scenarios.  Adrenaline can help or hinder.  Just think about the effect an adrenaline dump would have on trigger pull and aiming and how tunnel vision and auditory exclusion effects threat identification and communication.

This is a much broader topic, but this is where mindset training is so important.  The will to win and the never-give-up mindset needs to be in place when everything else goes down the toilet.  The 'fight or flight' response can sneak up on this group and catch them more off guard than most folks, if only for the reason that it's unexpected after all the training.  When you've survived multiple violent encounters and have remained calm and fully in control, when you do experience the dump, it can be a very unwelcome surprise.  But I'm getting off topic.

It's very important to gain an understanding of what you may experience in a violent confrontation.  Research, find instructors who've experienced violence, keep a serious mind and make sure your training offers you the highest likelihood of success no matter how your body and mind respond.

Nature has given us a survival gift in the 'fight or flight', but we need to realize that some situations in the modern world do not allow us to maximize this evolutionary advantage.  Food for thought.

Train safely.

Mind the Gap - Part V - The Law - a follow up

It was fairly challenging to write a single post that would capture how the law looks at self defense.  The content applied to the laws of several countries, and as such, hit mainly on the commonalities of the law and advice to keep you, the reader, safe and in a strong legal position.

John Coles left the following comments on my post on the law.  I've decided to respond to his concerns and comments in this post.  John's comments are in italics and I'll follow in bolded regular text.


"When you defend yourself against another person, you are assaulting that person. The law is based on assuming that is an illegal act, but then provides a defence against that act - self defence.


Most laws regarding assaults include the following elements - (1) the deliberate application of force to another, (2) directly or indirectly, (3) without their consent.  Self defense techniques therefore do fit John's point.  You are assaulting the person, but self defense is an area in law that justifies that use of force, exempting you from criminal liability, as long as it was reasonable.


Your point #2 needs clarification. You can use as much force as necessary to defend yourself - but no more. The law is about proportionality. However, humans have evolved to over react. In evolutionary terms, if you entire destroy the threat or do enough simply to nullify it, they are one and the same. For evolution, make sure and ensure the survival of the species - over react and destroy the threat outofsight. This then brings evolved behavioural patterns into conflict with modern law.


You can use as much force as necessary to defend yourself - but no more.  I stand by my comment as it is correct.  Perhaps for clarification, I could have said that you can use the minimum amount of force as is necessary to defend yourself.  I didn't choose this wording as I feared it could confuse the matter as the minimum amount of force will vary for each situation and for each person, based on the totality of the circumstances.  


From an evolutionary perspective, there may be a more basic animal reaction in some, but I doubt that most people would resort to shooting someone in the head if they shoved them to ensure the survival of the species.  I don't necessarily disagree with John's point, but I'm referring to getting out of a dangerous situation intact, where there is a degree of evolved thought.


Pre-emptive 'attacks' to defend oneself. You have a legal problem there. You assaulted another person. You need to find a defence. Given the legal system is based on legislated law and precedent, you need to find a legistlated law or precedent that supports your case. Given the person did not attack you, that often becomes problematic. How many women have been jailed for killing their abusers when their abusers were not actually attacking them at the time?

You may have a problem with pre-emptive attacks, you may not.  Yes, you've completed the essential components of how an assault is defined.  There is a fairly significant body of case law, or precedent which supports some pre-emptive action.  There are a couple of areas that need to be factored in to the discussion.  When did the assault begin?  If someone is advancing on you with the intent and ability to hurt you, in my opinion, the assault has begun.  You also must understand that each situation would be examined on a case by case basis, which must factor in all the circumstances of the event.  Who are you?  What did you perceive?  Who was your attacker?  Where were you?  Were there weapons?  Drugs?  Alcohol?  The list goes on and on.  

You will have to explain yourself, but again, you are likely going to be successful if your only motivation was to get away to safety, not to hurt or punish your opponent.

As for the domestic abuser comments. There have been women who have been sent to jail for killing their abusers when they weren't actively being attacked, but there are also ones who have been found not guilty due to the history and all the circumstances surrounding the abuse and the individuals.


Here is a question that may intrigue. If you punch someone in the street, that is an assault and you'll be arrested for it. Why is it any different when you do it in a class or a tournament? Why is it any different when a football player (Aussie Rules of course) punches an opposing football player? Why aren't F1 drivers arrested for assault when they attack each other, or soccer players, basketball players, etc. when they engage in fisticuffs in their sports?


The answer is important for the teaching of marital arts."


Sports violence is an interesting side issue.  The reason that a certain degree of violence is tolerated in martial arts or sports is due to the issue of consent.  One of the elements of proving an assault is that the force applied was without the other person's consent.  If two sports players basically 'agree' to fight, it's sometimes ok.  Having said that, there's an important caveat.  The law states that you cannot consent to major or serious injury.  That's why sports figures who seriously injure the other player often face criminal charges, especially if it's a 'sneak attack'. 


It is an interesting area in law, and martial artists should understand how it applies to their study.


I thank John for his comments on my post.  I welcome any other questions or comments on the topic.


Also, please be advised that John has just launched a new blog on The School of Jan de Jong.  Check it out.

Mind the Gap - Part V - The Law

Use of Force

(disclaimer time - As with any issue that touches on the law, I encourage everyone to learn about the laws where they live.  Some laws will vary from place to place.  My interpretations are based on my experiences dealing with North American law and my exposure to the laws of several international countries.)

Most martial artists are pretty decent people.  In a somewhat paradoxical fashion, many martial artists are very concerned that they are going to hurt someone in an altercation.  Others believe that they can't use their skills to defend themselves because they would be criticized in a court of law.  Others even believe that black belts need to register their hands as deadly weapons. They don't.  That one gives me a chuckle.

Most laws in most countries are very similar in the area of use of force for self defense.

How much is too much?

How much force can you use to defend yourself?  How much is too much? What if your attacker gets hurt?  These are all good questions and show a responsible mind.  During an attack however, such thoughts breed hesitation. And hesitation spells disaster.  So what to do?

The Rules:

Well, here's three simple rules that will hopefully free your mind to train safely, responsibly and effectively.

#1.  Your right to defend yourself is not affected by your ability to do so.  

- Everyone has a right to defend themselves from harm (or to defend someone else).  It doesn't matter who you are or what you know.  

#2.  You can use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat.  

- This is a little more difficult to absorb.  First, there must be a threat.  You must believe you are in danger and that the other person has the ability to carry out whatever that threat is.  You are justified in using as much force as is needed to stop the threat, but that's it.  As soon as the threat has abated, you must stop.  If you don't, your use of force shifts from defense to assault in the eyes of the law.

Point #1 and #2, while accurate, will still cause many of you to have questions. There are lots of 'What if...' questions that can come up.

So here is probably the most important point of all:

#3.  If your only goal or motivation in a violent encounter is to get away, chances are the rest will take care of itself.

In Part IV, I talked about how the goal of true self defense, or the definition of success was a) surviving, b) getting away, and c) minimizing or avoiding injury.  With this in mind, let's review the first two points.

Point #1 said your right to defend yourself is not affected by your ability to do so.  So the better you are, the easier it will be to create an opportunity for you to get away.  You may end up creating an opportunity to escape using much less force than an untrained person.

Point #2 said you can use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat. You have stopped the threat when you have created an opportunity to get away.  Assuming all your other avoidance strategies didn't work, do whatever you have to do to create an exit point.  If this is the only goal of the force you use, chances are you'll be o.k.

There are also the optics of the situation.  If onlookers observed the altercation and they saw you try to talk your way out of a situation, and then when you were attacked, they watched you respond but immediately take the first opportunity to escape and get to safety and call for help, they are now positive witnesses.  On the other hand, if you stuck around and gave your attacker a couple of shots to punish them for picking the wrong guy (or gal), how would that look?  Even if the same level of injury was sustained by your attacker in both scenarios, one would be a lot easier to explain to a court.

The law typically has two parts, the criminal act and the criminal intent. Typically both must be proven to convict someone of a crime.  Acts are easier to determine.  You punched your attacker.  That was the act.  The intent is a bit trickier.  And that's where we need to observe rule #3.  If your intent was to hurt your attacker, you might be questioned about the amount of force you used, you might even be charged with assault.  If your intent was to provide an opportunity to get away and get help, chances are you won't.  It's really that simple.

Conclusion:

If your only true goal in a violent encounter is to survive and get away, chances are the law will be on your side.  Beyond the law, you'll also be comfortable in the knowledge that whatever force you used was legally, morally and ethically sound.  When your mind is unclouded by all the 'What if questions', you will respond more quickly and more effectively to any attack. The rest will just sort of fall into place.

I hope this helps to pull together all the parts of the Mind the Gap series into a somewhat cohesive package.

Train effectively, train responsibly, train safely.

Mind the Gap - Part IV - What is your goal?

The Question:

Perhaps the biggest question you need to ask yourself is why you are doing what you are doing.  What is your motivation in training, or in an encounter?  What is you end goal, your desired outcome?

I had read a post on Sue’s blog which asked "What kind of martial artist are you?"  I had made a comment and she had responded that I was lucky in that I knew exactly what I wanted and needed and that I had found a place where I got just that.  She said that I was lucky on both counts.

Her comments made me give quite a bit of thought to the matter.

I am lucky.  I know what I need and how to get it.  I am unique that in a confrontation, my motivation, goal, or desired outcome is different than most.  I must continue and resolve the matter, ending in a superior position with my opponent under control, or under arrest, the danger to myself and others having been negated.

In most circumstances, there is no need for the majority of us to ‘finish’ it.  By nature of occupation, I am not always afforded the more sensible approach of extricating myself from the situation as quickly and safely as possible.

Motivation/Goals:

Not having a clear understanding of your motivation, or your desired outcome or goal, will likely interfere with your ability to respond to real encounters with violence. 

There is a tendency for most martial artists to feel a need to best their opponent, to beat them, or to win.  This is re-enforced by the structure of most martial arts instruction.  Tapping out, point scoring, judging, they all re-enforce the concept of winning or losing.

Redefining Success:

We need to re-define what it means to be successful, or to win.  For true self-defense purposes, winning should be defined as:

#1.  Surviving

#2   Getting away

#3.  Minimizing/avoiding injury 

That’s it. 

With that in mind, how many times is running away taught in a martial arts school?  It may be mentioned in passing, but how often do you actually practice getting away after an attack has been thrown at you?  How often do you respond and then actually run away.  Remember, you will fight how you train.

If we are truly interested in pure survival self-defense, we need to throw away our preconceived ideas on what it means to win.  This especially applies to the more testosterone filled among us.  Guys (and some girls) have trouble running away.  They see it as a sign of weakness or cowardice. 

This thinking needs to be changed.  After all, what takes more courage, running away and returning to your loved ones to be there for them, or dying over some stupid ass fight?

Imagine what your eulogy might say in both scenarios.  How would you want to be remembered, as a dependable person who cared about family and friends, or as a person that had to prove he/she could win a fight, but didn’t.  Think about it.

Why do I bother taking martial arts if I’m just going to run away?

Should you pack in your martial arts study and buy a good pair of running shoes with the money? 

No, of course you shouldn’t.

Effective martial arts are there for when you can’t get away, or when you need to get to a point where you can safely get away.  Or for when you must protect someone who cannot protect themselves.  You need to remember it won’t be pretty, the techniques won’t be as smooth or as flowing as they are in practice, and you may get hurt.  You use your martal arts training to hit, block, surprise, unbalance, lock, throw, kick, or whatever you choose as tools to open up the opportunity to get away.  Not to win, look good, brag, or punish.  Just until you can get away safely. 

If a significant amount of your training is not being spent on this type of work, with this type of mindset, you may need to ask yourself the difficult question of whether or not you are actually learning true self-defense.

Focus:

As I’ve said on many occasions, there are lots of other benefits to studying martial arts.  And all that other ‘stuff’ in training can make you better at self-defense, but you still need to work on the actual self-defense part.  I look at it like this.  If you want to be an excellent basketball player, running drills help, squats and weight training help, riding a bike helps, Olympic lifts help etc.  

All those activities can serve to help you improve your game, but they won’t help you one bit if you don’t actually play basketball.  It needs to be the focus of your training.  Just like self defense needs to be the focus of your martial arts training.

In the next (and probably last) part of this particular series, I’ll touch on the concerns that many martial artists have about the law and legal issues surrounding self defense.   

Train wisely.

Mind the Gap - Part III - Learn to Attack

Most martial arts schools focus more on the what to do when you are attacked, not how to attack.  This makes sense on many levels.  After all, it's self defense, not attacking 101.

Not spending enough time on learning how to attack properly can be a big mistake.  Properly is a poor choice of words, learning how to attack realistically is what's important.

I've touched upon this on a couple occasions, and discussed the importance of being a good uke, but I haven't really explored the gap in attacking.

I posed the question in my knife survival series (yes, I'll be posting again on it soon).  I asked readers to imagine a scenario where you were forced to attack or 'take somebody out'.  You had no knowledge of their skills or abilities and you had no choice.  Would you face off, using measured practiced attacks to beat them, or would you take one big swing in hopes that it was all that was needed?  Most people would go for the big single attack.  There are very few people so confident in their abilities that they would not be concerned about the unknown factor of who the other person is or what they know.

And most people that are going to attack you, to rob you, or try to boost themselves up in a drunk or drug induced state, will opt for the big committed attack.

If we accept this to be true, then we need to learn how to attack like this.  I've stated on several occasions that you should spend the majority of your time training to deal with the most likely form of attack, and the most likely form of attacker.  To do anything else is to do yourself a disservice.  

The attacks we defend from in martial arts study are often unrealistic.  It's understandable really.  The act of attacking is so foreign to many practitioners, teachers and students alike, that I can't really blame them.

Most martial artists don't practice unprovoked attacks.  That's because most martial artists, TMA, RBS or MMA, aren't the sort of folks that want to harm, rob or hurt innocent people.  

The problem, then, is that we don't practice in a way that mimics the adrenaline fuelled encounters that we are most likely to face in the real world.

When the attacks aren’t realistic, the defences aren’t either.  Take the straight punch – How much time have you spent learning how to defend against it?  Or the reverse punch.  Or any attack from a deep stance etc.  It doesn't really matter which style you study, I'm sure you can identify any number or unrealistic attacks you spend time on defending.  That, combined with getting into the trap of only learning defenses to techniques in your own style.  I recently posted on how many styles are great at defending against themselves.  They stay in their own framework, playing within their own set of 'rules', if you will.  And rules tend to water down the effectiveness of any martial art system. 

It's important to research realistic attacks.  The internet can be a good source of information, just try to make sure that what you research is from a reputable source.  Read the news.  Consider seeking out people who are exposed to real violence, most likely through profession, who offer seminars or courses on personal protection.  Basically, find out what you actually might face, and practice responding, or defending, from that.

Mind the Gap - Part II

In Part I of this discussion, the gap or disconnect between the reality of violence and martial arts instruction was touched upon, as an overview.

There are many fantastic benefits of martial arts study such as fitness, fun, friendship, discipline, confidence etc.

My concerns and issues relate to pure, raw self defense applicability.

The first broad area I touched upon was techniques.  I don't feel that the actual mechanics of martial arts techniques are to blame.  Sure, there are some flowery moves that are pretty to watch and largely ineffective, but by and large, most techniques stand up.  They are the core course of study in most martial arts.  As long as they have been interpreted correctly, they work. And most of them have been around for awhile.  A long while.  Enough said.

Techniques work only if they are understood and you know how to apply them. This is the first gap.  Many people, teacher and students included, don't really understand how, or when, to use a technique.  Not only that, they do not understand what will happen to their opponent, or to them, once it is applied.

Too many techniques are taught in isolation.  They are static in nature.  The opponent, (uke), often doesn't move at you or resist your actions.  The start, or entry, into the technique essentially starts from nowhere.  Usually, both parties stand there, face to face, and a grab or attack begins.  No movement, no approach by either party.  This lack of movement can have a significant impact on the applicability of a response.  How often does a real encounter begin with two people standing calmly face to face?  Try any number of your techniques on a rapidly approaching individual and see how your response must change or adapt.  Even for those who do use some advancing movement in the initiation of attack, how often is the advance on an angle? from the side? from behind? from a rapid approach?  Run at your opponent next time and see what changes.

Next, it's important to understand what is going to happen to your opponent when you apply a technique. Are they going to collapse, fall backwards, lurch forward etc?  You need to know this so you don't end up off balance, or having your attacker crash into you.  Also, what's next?  Have you just made them tap?  Have your really improved your position?  Can you get away? Have you done enough to make yourself safe, or have you set yourself up for the next move?  You need to understand more than just how to put a technique on.  You need to understand the before, during and after effects of what you are doing.

When you apply a technique other than kicks and punches, while it's important for your opponent to tap, you should not immediately let go.  You should ease up and continue the motion to see it through to it's conclusion.  Stay in control of the individual.  In a real attack, it's unlikely your opponent will tap, and even if they do, that doesn't mean you let go.  You need to end up in a position of advantage where you can either continue on or disengage, depending on the circumstances.

Remember, YOU WILL FIGHT AS YOU TRAIN!

I've seen people do disarms in real situations and start to hand the weapon back to the attacker, so programmed were they from their training. (did that sound a bit like Yoda?)

So don't let go when your opponent taps, just ease up.  The reason we tap in the martial arts is so we're not programmed to let go when someone yells out in pain or shouts stop!


In the next part, I'll discuss why it's just as important to learn how to attack as it is to defend.

Be safe.

Mind the Gap - A discussion on the disconnect between the reality of violence and martial arts teachings - Part I

There is a growing gap between reality, the nature of violence, and martial arts training.  This gap is not exclusive to traditional martial arts (TMA), reality based systems (RBS) or mixed martial arts (MMA).  

Why is this happening?  What's wrong with the martial arts? 

Is it the techniques?  

Is it the application? 

Is it a matter of understanding?

Is it a matter of motivation?

Is it the teachers?

Is it the students?

Techniques:

The least serious offender are the techniques themselves.  A punch hurts, joints only bend so many ways, the body follows pain etc.  Most techniques will work, at least somewhat, if used in the right circumstances.

Application and Understanding:

These next two are part a big part of the problem.  Techniques only work if they are applied correctly, and if you understand how and when they will be effective.  If you don't take into account movement, momentum, desire, skill and action vs. reaction, then attempts at applying techniques are unlikely to be successful.  If you don't understand what happens after you apply a technique or as you apply it, you'll also be in a tough spot.

Motivation:

This may be the biggest issue forcing a gap between truly effective realistic training and what is being passed off as 'real stuff'.  This sounds very critical but I'll explain this more in depth later on.  This is the mind part, the 'why you're doing what you're doing' and your desired outcome.

Teachers:

Teachers can definitely be part of the problem, but from what I've seen, it's rarely a lack of physical skill that is to blame, any shortcomings come back to application, understanding and motivation.

Students:

Normally we think of students as being hapless participants in the process.  If they are lucky enough to find a great teacher, they benefit, if they find a poor teacher, they didn't know better.  Now, it can often be challenging to find a good teacher if you have no real experience or understanding of the nature of violence, but the student needs to take an active role in being responsible for the type and quality of their training.  They need to focus on figuring out their motivation.  Why are they taking martial arts in the first place?

Does this mean everything is flawed?  No.  What it does mean is that we need a deeper examination of what we are doing and more importantly, why we are doing it.

The next part will discuss some of the things that I've been seeing in the world of martial arts and why they are of concern.  I'll also delve more deeply into the points I've just raised and discuss strategies for closing the gap.

Train smart.