Come with an open mind or don't bother coming at all.
We will have all encountered those people that come to a class, seminar etc. with a closed mind. They don't come to learn, they come to show you and prove to themselves their own superiority to you and what it is you are teaching. They resist the training. They ignore and don't follow instructions. They start doing their own thing. They will start teaching other students telling them how things should be done or telling them to ignore what you have told them. When they do follow some of what you are teaching they will do things to break it, following other options so they can win, or tell you why they would do something else because their way would be better. They will continue to hold their position in the face of reasoned arguments, polite requests and even when you show them in practice why their way is not working. Constantly countering what they try in practice, They will respond with "Well I would do blah blah" You them let them try it and they still can not make their part work, they continue to come up with more excuses. "If it was free sparing", "If he had masks", "wore more protection or less", "went faster/harder", "the weapons were sharp" and so on. I have encountered this attitude from beginners to those considered "respected" instructors. I should note that people can change, that someone who displays this closed minded attitude and can open up, normally at later date, but I would also be aware that the change may not be firmly established
If you are one of those people, then please don't go to study with people you disagree with, don't waste your time or theirs. Going to someone else without an open mind will not change anything, turning up and telling someone that what they are doing is wrong has consistently proven to be a highly unsuccessful way of converting people or making them receptive to change.
Now I hope that if you are reading this blog that you are not one of those people.
However in this case you might well have these people turn up to "train" with you. In which case I would suggest that as soon as you realise that they are one of those people, you politely tell them that you would like them to leave the session or not attend if you realise before the time, as it is not for them and they won't get anything from it. If they have paid for the training, give then a full refund, if they haven't paid then they have no reason to stay once you ask them to go.
We have all had the situation where we haven't asked these people to leave. Perhaps because we are afraid that if they tell them to leave that the people will go away and talk badly about what you do to others. Trust me, these kinds of people will talk badly about you whatever you do. Even if you had a sudden conversion to their way of doing things they would walk about how you were an idiot for training the old system for so long and taking so long to realise and that you are useless at their way.
Remember for this type, it is not about learning, it not even about improving within what they do, it is about them validating their own self image, and that validation it based upon their superiority and the inferiority of everyone else.
Consider again, when you teach, why are you doing it, what are you doing? You are giving people, open minded people who want to learn/train, your time and access to your knowledge. If you are wasting your time in a pointless discussion with someone who is not interested in changing and will not, then you are not giving your time to those that are those who are with an open mind, and those open minded peoples time, and money.
Do it with an open Mind or don't do it at all.
Wednesday 17 July 2013
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Communication, conflict, aggression and Violence
People communicate, we are social primates, we are wired for communication, so even when we think we are not communicating we generally are. Even the act of consciously intending to not communicate is communication as we are so geared to do it, opting out is something strong. When people communicate they do so to change their environment, to manipulate, to achieve their own ends through the assistance of others.
When individuals or groups have intentions that that they are trying to communicate there will conflict....
Aggression and the violence that it may be connected to is a form of communication. There are fewer more forceful ways to convey or achieve your intentions and goals than through their application.
It needs to be understood that we all communicate in many different ways, many of them we and unaware of, both vocally and through body language. By developing an understanding of the unconscious ways we communicate and by understanding that violence and aggression are forms of communication people can develop an improved understanding of how to convey it.
They can also understand how conflict leading to aggression and violence occurs and develops to gain a better insight to why they may or may not need to be communicated through their characters.
Sunday 7 July 2013
Someone was trying to kill me! No really they were
People are these days generally unfamiliar with violence, certainly the
actualities of violence, as in
their day to day lives they have no contact with it, at least in the higher end physical format. They generally therefore base the "knowledge" upon the fantasy that is sold to us in movies or the modified versions in combat sports.
Often when teaching or working on a production, when I ask what the objective or Intent is, I receive the answer, "They want to kill so and so". Sometimes this is true but more often it is not and I will address some reasons below. Even if the outcome is that someone dies, that of itself does not mean that the Intent from the beginning was to kill. More often than not a death is a side effect, accepted or unforeseen of attempting to achieve other outcomes through the application of violence.
Sometimes I will get answer, "no they don't want to kill". While in these circumstances the answer is generally right, the person doesn't really know why, they can't explain it clearly. Again what is listed below is an attempt to give some parameters to these questions.
As I have mentioned in other posts human use aggression, the threat of violence, and violence for many reasons, and will often go to great ,lengths to avoid it, even if it is the best or only solution to the situation they find themselves in.
What follows was inspired by Marc MacYoung , and my thanks go to him in this for putting a frame work that I could build upon, ideas that I have been expressing for years.
While an easy claim to make if one has been on receiving of a violent act, in all likelihood they were not intending to kill you. For that claim to have real justification at least of or more of the following six outcomes need to be true
The Six Possible Outcomes
The most likely outcome of someone actually trying to kill you is,
-1.You die.
People whose Intent is to kill will generally need to be in an extreme state of emotional arousal, so they are likely to act forcefully and aggressively. Even without the emotional state, in fact it is more likely with out the emotional state, the would be killer will have done al they can to stack the odds in their favour to insure they succeed. In these cases you are unlikely to know they Intend to kill you before it is too late or you will think that you are involved in some other form of lower level social violence or activity,until it too late to do much about, In these cases the person it likely to be dead or dying before they realise that is what is happening
The second possible outcome is
-2. You end up in the hospital or similar
This will be along time of being tended, weeks or months. If medical treatment allows in the time period, then it is likely that some form of extensive surgery would have been needed. In the days prior to antibiotics this where more people would die than as an immediate result of the actual violence. However people did survive extreme wounds
The third option is someone - usually the person on the receiving end of the attack,
-3. Ran away.
Logically there is no adverse effect to the this option, and it is a good and long lasting survival tactic, It is basically the Flight as opposed to the Fight, which will only kick in if the Flight response is not an option . The earlier one applies this tactic generally the better. As we say, running away is the easiest and cheapest martial art to learn. However many people leave it to late and by the time they decide to run they can't. We also have to consider that historically the option to run would mark one as a coward or dishonourable and the sense of self that this engendered could lead people to override their survival instincts
The Fourth option
-4. You attack back with equal force, you "Fight".
Using same or similar weapons you attack back, generally the involvement of weapons is a prime indicator that death/killing is a accepted possibility. If you raise the stakes and produce a weapon to counter theirs, which may just be a threat display, you have brought the situation closer to being a deadly encounter. However the flip side is, if they did intend to kill you this and the next two options have a good chance of inducing the flight (running) response in an attacker.
One needs to understand that most would-be killer have the intent for you to die. They are generally not willing to die themselves themselves This is why countering with what they are trying to do to you is a good game changer.
In effect what we are talking about here is fighting back, you are doing something but not really enough given the situation, though something is better than nothing
The fifth option is you
-5. Retaliate with such ferocity that the other person is injured, killed or runs away.
This is not fighting, this is counter assault or counter ambush. Here you have gone in to Full FIGHT mode, and are responding with a greater level of violence or aggression and rage than the attacker. Your Intent, concious or not has become to kill your attacker as well. Even if you do not succeed in actually killing them, they stop because they have taken sufficient damage to render them incapable of continuing. Normally however most would-be murderers will not wait that long. When suddenly faced with the same options they gave you, death or hospitalization or running, the would-be killer opts for running away or giving up, if they can when they have decided they have taken enough damage.
The sixth option is
-6. Someone else intervenes.
This intervention on their behalf or yours changes the dynamic and the power in the situation and results in some combination of options 1-5 listed above happening to you or your attacker. The intervention can be by more than one person. People may intervene in other acts of violence, but normally once the main act of violence is over. When it is clear the Intent is to kill people will often intervene because part of our hard wiring realises that killing, is bad and seeks to stop it.
While it is easy -- and it may seem dramatic -- to decide that the Intention was to kill it is very rarely the case. However if any combination of these six options, were not the results then person person was not trying to kill. It should also be borne in mind that in the performance, one can not play the Intention to kill as that becomes dangerous to the performers
We say this no matter what the target, or witnesses may claim after the fact. Be careful;
-What your (the performer) emotional brain tells you.
-What someone claims, a character in play or an actor, director or fight director
-What a fear monger tries to convince you. That is someone who does not understand violence or who has a specific agenda that rests on an over inflating the terrible nature of violence
If the six outcomes were not in play then the Intent to kill was not there.
So be careful of using information from later in the story to give insight into the attackers motivation, unless it was the attacker themselves. Rather apply the list.
Be aware. It is extremely common that someone may engage in life-threatening behaviour such as a brandishing a weapon or beating someone severely. The fact is that the person is not trying to kill you, as if that was their Intent they would have used these things to kill you. It is common for someone to do something that can cause extreme harm or even to be deadly, without the intention to kill. This is especially true with threat displays (which I will have to write a post about) and certainly when fighting with weapons was accepted or common place and when society accepted "duelling" with weapons as a way to solve differences and challenges to status and or dominance, in effect armed and formalised Monkey Dancing.
A good way to tell the difference between a threat display and a real Intent to kill is the number of times the behaviour/action is repeated. One wildly aimed shot with a firearm is different than someone clearly and deliberately aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger repeatedly. Or someone swing a weapon a sword or weapon at you wildly or out of distance and closing purposely and cutting or stabbing repeatedly without pause. With the later options, sooner or later, it will change from being shot or stabbed/cut at to being shot, stabbed or cut. If the person means to kill you, they will in all likelihood keep shooting, stabbing or cut and will continue to do so multiple times and direct the attacks at vital parts of the body.
People with the clear Intent to kill usually will not stop until;
They've succeeded,
They believe they have succeeded or
The danger to them becomes too great to continue.
So next time you watch or read a scene where there is violence, consider the characters Intent, and ask yourself was it really to kill!?
their day to day lives they have no contact with it, at least in the higher end physical format. They generally therefore base the "knowledge" upon the fantasy that is sold to us in movies or the modified versions in combat sports.
Often when teaching or working on a production, when I ask what the objective or Intent is, I receive the answer, "They want to kill so and so". Sometimes this is true but more often it is not and I will address some reasons below. Even if the outcome is that someone dies, that of itself does not mean that the Intent from the beginning was to kill. More often than not a death is a side effect, accepted or unforeseen of attempting to achieve other outcomes through the application of violence.
Sometimes I will get answer, "no they don't want to kill". While in these circumstances the answer is generally right, the person doesn't really know why, they can't explain it clearly. Again what is listed below is an attempt to give some parameters to these questions.
As I have mentioned in other posts human use aggression, the threat of violence, and violence for many reasons, and will often go to great ,lengths to avoid it, even if it is the best or only solution to the situation they find themselves in.
What follows was inspired by Marc MacYoung , and my thanks go to him in this for putting a frame work that I could build upon, ideas that I have been expressing for years.
While an easy claim to make if one has been on receiving of a violent act, in all likelihood they were not intending to kill you. For that claim to have real justification at least of or more of the following six outcomes need to be true
The Six Possible Outcomes
The most likely outcome of someone actually trying to kill you is,
-1.You die.
People whose Intent is to kill will generally need to be in an extreme state of emotional arousal, so they are likely to act forcefully and aggressively. Even without the emotional state, in fact it is more likely with out the emotional state, the would be killer will have done al they can to stack the odds in their favour to insure they succeed. In these cases you are unlikely to know they Intend to kill you before it is too late or you will think that you are involved in some other form of lower level social violence or activity,until it too late to do much about, In these cases the person it likely to be dead or dying before they realise that is what is happening
The second possible outcome is
-2. You end up in the hospital or similar
This will be along time of being tended, weeks or months. If medical treatment allows in the time period, then it is likely that some form of extensive surgery would have been needed. In the days prior to antibiotics this where more people would die than as an immediate result of the actual violence. However people did survive extreme wounds
The third option is someone - usually the person on the receiving end of the attack,
-3. Ran away.
Logically there is no adverse effect to the this option, and it is a good and long lasting survival tactic, It is basically the Flight as opposed to the Fight, which will only kick in if the Flight response is not an option . The earlier one applies this tactic generally the better. As we say, running away is the easiest and cheapest martial art to learn. However many people leave it to late and by the time they decide to run they can't. We also have to consider that historically the option to run would mark one as a coward or dishonourable and the sense of self that this engendered could lead people to override their survival instincts
The Fourth option
-4. You attack back with equal force, you "Fight".
Using same or similar weapons you attack back, generally the involvement of weapons is a prime indicator that death/killing is a accepted possibility. If you raise the stakes and produce a weapon to counter theirs, which may just be a threat display, you have brought the situation closer to being a deadly encounter. However the flip side is, if they did intend to kill you this and the next two options have a good chance of inducing the flight (running) response in an attacker.
One needs to understand that most would-be killer have the intent for you to die. They are generally not willing to die themselves themselves This is why countering with what they are trying to do to you is a good game changer.
In effect what we are talking about here is fighting back, you are doing something but not really enough given the situation, though something is better than nothing
The fifth option is you
-5. Retaliate with such ferocity that the other person is injured, killed or runs away.
This is not fighting, this is counter assault or counter ambush. Here you have gone in to Full FIGHT mode, and are responding with a greater level of violence or aggression and rage than the attacker. Your Intent, concious or not has become to kill your attacker as well. Even if you do not succeed in actually killing them, they stop because they have taken sufficient damage to render them incapable of continuing. Normally however most would-be murderers will not wait that long. When suddenly faced with the same options they gave you, death or hospitalization or running, the would-be killer opts for running away or giving up, if they can when they have decided they have taken enough damage.
The sixth option is
-6. Someone else intervenes.
This intervention on their behalf or yours changes the dynamic and the power in the situation and results in some combination of options 1-5 listed above happening to you or your attacker. The intervention can be by more than one person. People may intervene in other acts of violence, but normally once the main act of violence is over. When it is clear the Intent is to kill people will often intervene because part of our hard wiring realises that killing, is bad and seeks to stop it.
While it is easy -- and it may seem dramatic -- to decide that the Intention was to kill it is very rarely the case. However if any combination of these six options, were not the results then person person was not trying to kill. It should also be borne in mind that in the performance, one can not play the Intention to kill as that becomes dangerous to the performers
We say this no matter what the target, or witnesses may claim after the fact. Be careful;
-What your (the performer) emotional brain tells you.
-What someone claims, a character in play or an actor, director or fight director
-What a fear monger tries to convince you. That is someone who does not understand violence or who has a specific agenda that rests on an over inflating the terrible nature of violence
If the six outcomes were not in play then the Intent to kill was not there.
So be careful of using information from later in the story to give insight into the attackers motivation, unless it was the attacker themselves. Rather apply the list.
Be aware. It is extremely common that someone may engage in life-threatening behaviour such as a brandishing a weapon or beating someone severely. The fact is that the person is not trying to kill you, as if that was their Intent they would have used these things to kill you. It is common for someone to do something that can cause extreme harm or even to be deadly, without the intention to kill. This is especially true with threat displays (which I will have to write a post about) and certainly when fighting with weapons was accepted or common place and when society accepted "duelling" with weapons as a way to solve differences and challenges to status and or dominance, in effect armed and formalised Monkey Dancing.
A good way to tell the difference between a threat display and a real Intent to kill is the number of times the behaviour/action is repeated. One wildly aimed shot with a firearm is different than someone clearly and deliberately aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger repeatedly. Or someone swing a weapon a sword or weapon at you wildly or out of distance and closing purposely and cutting or stabbing repeatedly without pause. With the later options, sooner or later, it will change from being shot or stabbed/cut at to being shot, stabbed or cut. If the person means to kill you, they will in all likelihood keep shooting, stabbing or cut and will continue to do so multiple times and direct the attacks at vital parts of the body.
People with the clear Intent to kill usually will not stop until;
They've succeeded,
They believe they have succeeded or
The danger to them becomes too great to continue.
So next time you watch or read a scene where there is violence, consider the characters Intent, and ask yourself was it really to kill!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)