Self Defense article

[Tanzer]

"Empirical evidence" will prove very elusive here. Such courses give training, new knowledge. Case by case analysis is impossible, because only a fraction of those trained will ever use such techniques. It is simply subjective to view it holistically. Muggers are different. A scientific study would require that the same mugger attack about a thousand women - 500 in the control group, and 500 "trained". All would have to be under the same circumstances. Peoples moods (mugger and victim) actually play a role also. The best we can do is look for trends in the data, and make reasonable assumptions.
I can drop a bag of marbles, and through mathematical algorithms deduce where each one will come to rest. Marbles have no free will. Drop a bunch of ants or any living thing, and all bets are off. The human animal is far more complex. Said BG might hate blondes because his ex was one, so blondes get the "extra" anger treatment. Women have "buttons" also. My family knows not to ask much of me before my second cup of coffee.
Does a 3 hour seminar in finances make me better than my Morgan Stanley guy? Does it help me ask the right questions? Does a two hour seminar in how to break down a lawnmower engine mean I'll never need a new one? 'Dunno, depends on what breaks.
I'm not getting off-topic here. Some are looking (understandably) for "empirical" data. Such data cannot be gathered with such numerous and powerful variables as defending one's life. A cornered mouse will fight. Will it beat the cat? Depends on the cat.The best we can do is be subjective. We can disagree, but it is an exercise in futility to expect that we will convince 100% of our counterparts. Our dissention must be civil, because we are products of our enviromnment. This is a subjective thread.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't do lit reviews for folks. I read up for myself. Go to the library. You will find the references very quickly.

The amount of ignorance in this thread about research design is stunning.

It is the presumption of the folks against these courses that they hurt women. I suggest it is really misogyny that leads some men to denigrate women.

[Thumper]

"preserve honor"? What a bunch of BS.

Unfortunate. So many subtleties you fail to get.

Why does the word "honor" make you recoil so, JustMe?

Before dismissing the concept of honor as hollow, perhaps you should consider your circumstances and how they color your thinking.

Of course a trained individual is in a better position to defend himself.
Of course it happens that people are held at gunpoint.
Of course occasionally it becomes obvious to those people that they are on the verge of being killed. (Please note Pax' news clip.)

What precisely is your argument at this point?

[9mmHP]

Mr. Meyer,

You do research design for a living, really? But you can name not one "empirical" study, what you demanded from your opponents, to prove your point. I can smell bluster. You're not the only one here to have research methodology training, or to know who Stanley and Stanley are. The null hypothesis, that this course has no effect, is accepted. The advocate of the contrary hypothesis can produce no support for his theory. Changing the subject by crying "discrimination against women" is out of line...and ridiculous. Send two teenage boys, who say that they didn't want to go, to the same course and I would say exactly the same thing about them.

[Art Eatman]

This ain't my usual bailiwick, but I see this thread is degenerating into a personal squabble--and that tends to be a thread-closing sequence...

Art

[mikejonestkd]

9mm.

please keep it civil. Glenn's qualifications and experience are well known. I suggest using google..

Personal attacks have no place here. even thinly disguised ones.

The point being made is that there is no evidence that supports the claim that a few SD courses make people bolder and more likely to resist attackers, resulting in an increase in the victim's injuries.

[9mmHP]

And the same to you. "Glenn's qualifications and experience" can't be used as a cudgel to force others to accept what he says without contradiction. Glenn started the attacks, and now wants a pass to make wild unsupported allegations about the character of others in the thread. It's disgusting and he doesn't get a pass for having letters after his name. The point being made is that there is no support for saying that this course doesn't make people bolder and more likely to resist attackers, resulting in an increase in the victim's injuries. Period.

[Justme]

Thumper I am not against honor, nor do I minimise it's important. I was just pointing out that honor is less important than life itself, which on this one strange little corner of the internet seems to be a controversial thought. I was also pointing out that defining honor is trickier than people would like to think. I normally try to stay closer to the subject at hand, but since this thread is going to be closed down soon anyway I thought I would respond.

My theory is that it's OK to risk your life in order to save your life, it is even OK to take or risk another person's life in order to save your own life. It is not OK to risk or take someone's life and certainly not wise in my opinion to risk your own life, in order to perserve some sense of honor, or address some perceived slight to your honor.

[Thumper]

Ah...I understand. Semantics.

Honor and Humility v. Hollow Pride

I agree to an extent, but there are some things worse than dying.

Back on topic:

I think your premise is that having only a modicum of training might encourage someone to try to use a technique that could escalate an encounter?

[Capt. Charlie]

...I see this thread is degenerating into a personal squabble--and that tends to be a thread-closing sequence...

Wholeheartedly agreed, Art.

One warning only, folks; tone it down.

[pax]

Originally Posted by 9mmHP

The point being made is that there is no support for saying that this course doesn't make people bolder and more likely to resist attackers, resulting in an increase in the victim's injuries. Period.

Here's the deal, 9mm: the person who makes a claim should support that claim. That's how progress is made in discussions like this.

What just happened in this thread is that you (and others) made a claim. You claimed that a one or two day class is likely to cause a woman to become aggressive, overconfident, and get killed because she overestimates her own ability.

That was the claim you made.

Other posters came along and said, please support your claim. Is there a study or studies you can point to that support the claim that a one or two day class actually increases the danger of a woman getting harmed by an attacker?

Now you want to turn it around and place the burden of proof on the people who asked you to support the claim you made. They should have to find studies supporting a negative.

The problem with that is it leads to endless tail-chasing. It usually results in what just happened:

Person A makes a claim. Person B asks for data or evidence or personal experience to back that claim up. Rather than supporting the claim he made, Person A tells Person B to prove that what Person A said was wrong. Person B says "I won't do your homework." Person A says that proves Person B didn't have any evidence ... and on and on and on it goes. Pretty soon everyone is arguing about who should prove what and nobody is actually trying to prove anything anymore (except, maybe, who has the biggest and most impressive wedding tackle). And then finally the thread gets closed and no one learned anything.

Make a claim, support your claim. Don't waste everyone's energy trying to force the other guy to support his claims. Support your own!

pax

[Lurper]

Evidence shmevidence! Neither one of you will find studies to support your positions because it doesn't exist. So, why don't you just agree to be on opposite sides of the debate, stop trying to convert each other (as if), present your arguments like gentlemen and let the debate continue.

I see merit in both arguments. One class w/out any practice ever will probably not give someone enough skills to disarm an attacker. However, one class with a bit of follow up can. It's sort of like weak hand only draws or one handed reloads - once you know the technique, you don't have to practice it daily to remain proficient.

As far as overconfidence goes, in a life or death situation, I believe the more confidence, the better.

I really don't think anyone can support the argument that some training (in this case particularly) is worse than none. Do you?

[Justme]

Yep, I believe that some training is worse than no training. Not because in a life or death situation less training is better, but because some training can lure people into a false sense of security that makes a life or death situation more likely.

As I said earlier, I call this journeyman hubris. A little bit of familiarity breeds contempt in all manner of endeavors. In experienced attorneys lose cases due to over confidence, inexperienced airplane mechanics get unjured or injure others due to over confidence, the list goes on and on.

In my experience, and I was teaching self defense to college girls and university employees back in 1980, most women have a misplaced sense of their own security and safety. A course that taught disarming as an afterthought while teaching young women to be afraid of the dark would be a good thing. Making college freshmen read that gift of fear book would be a good thing. Convincing them that they have decent odds when they are unarmed and facing an armed sociopath is a bad thing.

[Thumper]

Convincing them that they have decent odds when they are unarmed and facing an armed sociopath is a bad thing.

Who does this?

[buzz_knox]

Convincing them that they have decent odds when they are unarmed and facing an armed sociopath is a bad thing

By contrast, convincing them and the public at large that if they simply comply they won't be hurt has led to far more harm.

[Justme]

There you have it. You two guys have obviously not watched the video or read the claims concerning this particular class. You are arguing about some esoteric theoritical self defense class rather than the real class that started this thread.

[buzz_knox]

There you have it. You two guys have obviously not watched the video or read the claims concerning this particular class. You are arguing about some esoteric theoritical self defense class rather than the real class that started this thread.

You haven't limited yourself to discussing this specific class. You've made sweeping pronouncements on the subject of limited training. So, you have no justification for this comment.

[Lurper]

So Justme, are you saying that women who have taken this class should just comply with a rapists desires because they have no chance of prevailing in the encounter anyway?

[mikejonestkd]

Does anyone here know anyone that is exmilitary? Say....10-20 years since discharge?

Anyone have a story about how the exmilitary friend was" jumped in a dark alley " type of situation...and they reacted just like they had been trained 20 years ago?

Of couse you have, we all know of such instances.

ANY training, properly applied is better than none at all. Even years later a good number will remember and react to preserve their lives.

Not everyone will remember instinctively and react the way they were trained in a SD class ( be it a two day session, or years of MA training ) but a good number WILL..and that seems to be crux of the argument here.



in addition, I have had students reconnect with me decades later after I first trained them and it is amazing how much they DO remember from their training, and can readily apply it, even after being away from the MA for years.

[Tanzer]

When I read the article, it made me think that this guy must be a mall ninja, and I pointed out that a 120 pound unarmed woman versus a 180 pound armed man is going to have a bad day, especially if she thinks that she is going to learn to disarm him in a 2 day class.

I wonder why they never recommend a firearm and some training...

My girlfriend disagrees and thinks a woman can disarm a man with the right skills.

What say ye?

Thought I'd repost the OP.
1. Is the guy a mall ninja?
2. Will said woman have a bad day?
3. Why don't they recommend a firearm and some training?

My answers;
1. He's a guy earning a paycheck. He probably feels that his course has merit. He has probably thought the class through, and believes it will be beneficial to a good percentage of those who take the course seriously. He's probably been at it long enough to give good advice in the event that someone needs it. I would bet that the first piece of advice he gives is "don't be where the trouble starts" If not, his qualifications come into question with me. I believe there are less mall ninjas out there than people think.
2. A 300 pound linebacker would have a bad day. That doesn't mean they cannot put the training to good use.
3. Because he teaches MA, not a firearms course. One is free to take an NRA or other firearms class if they wish. He is doing what he advertised.
Those were the questions, and my responses.
Are we back on track now???

[Tanzer]

Oh yeah, His girlfriend disagrees. Good for her. she is likely to take the course seriously. How many times do we find that compliance with the sociopath is a death sentence? Ever see the video of the 13 year old girl getting into the the car at the carwash, video taped by the carwash cameras? Could she have survived if she ran? Maybe, maybe not, but she complied and DID NOT survive. I think in two days she could have learned not to believe stories like; "I have your family tied up". She just might have learned the old kick to the groin manuever or whatever. What she did was comply, because she saw no alternative. Maybe she should have been offered some.

[Deaf Smith]

Pax,

I don't think there is anybody saying you can't learn good techniques or that a woman can never physically oppose a man. I, and others, simlpy believe that given the dedication the average person is going to put towards study and continued practice combined with the average lack of resolve in most of the "sheep like" populance that training time is better spent focused on observation, avoidance and evasion.

The isolated case of a lucky 74 year old man against a tire iron weilding thirty something does not establish the rule. Most citizens will loose that encounter.

Musketeer,

Most citizens don't take self defense courses. Most citizens don't practice shooting. Most citizens are on condition white 99 percent of the time.

This old man knew how to fight and he decided it was worth the risk. We all have our boundries as to when we are willing to risk injury or death. He decided to stand up and did well.

[Capt. Charlie]

I was browsing through some defensive tactics videos on YouTube tonight and found a few that might be of some interest in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqIjXU2Q7Wc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM6Bpz6-dio

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07jnq...elated&search=

It's interesting to note the contradictions between techniques, but even more interesting to note the mutual agreement between instructors on "giving up" .

[Deaf Smith]

The trick, if you call it a trick, is to not telegraph what you are going to do.

Either get them to talk some or distract them some why (so as to get insided their OODA loop) and then do the disarm.

Lots of ways to disarm. But again, it's not telegraphing and distraction that makes it work (and a ton of practice!)

[Justme]

(and a ton of practice!)

Not just a couple of days with one instructor and a dozen giggling girls? Do tell.