Refrain from personal and inflammatory remarks. One paragraph above was edited.
I also caution all to avoid being emotionally hijacked by "phantom insults." Speaking to a point of view does not necessarily attribute that point of view to any one individual. I in turn will be careful with my comments. I understand some of the sentiments expressed.
I am puzzled why you view my posts the way you do. There clearly must be a misunderstanding.
I am not the first to have read Lt. Col. David Grossman's book - not by a long shot. Van was discussing it at some length on his forum in the past. Dave Young recommended it to us at camp. I finally broke down and bought the thing.
The book's first half is largely about the human being's reluctance to kill. Grossman cites numerous references from countless battles in history that suggest a shockingly low percentage of combatants in wartime are engaged in the killing. Of those that choose not to run, many engage in "posturing" activity. This includes shooting over the head of the enemy, constantly reloading an already-loaded weapon, aiming without shooting, loading for others, etc. A very, very small percentage of combatants (in the single digits) actually do the vast majority of the killing. And Grossman finds many of these folks have what society might consider "sociopathic" tendencies. These ideas, BTW, come from a Lt. Col. and a mental health professional.
In more recent years, the armed forces have succeeded in getting a greater number of participants in war to kill. Some of that has to do with the distance involved in "computerized warfare." Some of that has to do with more sophisticated training techniques in boot camp. Darren Laur and Bruce Siddle have written about methods used to get combatants and LEOs to believe in mission, be prepared for facing death, and program in responses to specific scenarios. Killing percentages now are regularly way above the 50% level.
However... There appears to be a built in shut-down mechanism in the human brain. Leave a soldier out in battle long enough, and his psychological nature betrays his programming. Off the top of my head, I believe 45 days is about where things start to backslide. Beyond that, most soldiers experience psychological trauma described in the past by a number of labels: battle fatigue, PTSS, etc. Leave your average soldier out in battle long enough and he becomes absolutely psychotic. This has led to armed forces changing their strategies. They now regularly recycle troops so as to minimize the impact. They also are heavily into the business of "debriefing" soldiers who have engaged in killing. Those that manage LEOs also engage in this activity.
Recently I posted a newspaper article about a group of soldiers that raided an al quaeda camp and virtually exterminated most of the inhabitants. The battle was up close and personal. Reading how the survivors needed to talk about what they had been through was absolutely fascinating.
Please read Grossman's book, Laird. You will understand what I am trying to convey much more after you have.
After reading Grossman's book, I am much more at peace with those feelings, Laird. Failure? I don't know... Just personal angst. Disappointment? Absolutely. With myself? It depends on whether the rational or the deep-seated emotional side is talking.Bill did you see your defending your self as a failure because you hurt some one? Were you disappointed with yourself? Did you see this as a conflict with living those beliefs Bill? Could you expand on this?
It's a difficult thing to describe, Laird. The killing and maiming business takes a very serious psychological toll. It's "heavy" enough work for those who choose to engage in it through various professional endeavors. It's even more difficult for those who don't ask to be put in a self-defense situation. Many instructors have no idea how difficult it is to prepare an individual to "do what is necessary" in a self defense situation. Our very human nature makes the vast majority of us conscientious objectors - in spite of what folks might say to the contrary to shore up their psychological shields. And when someone actually engages and survives, the psychological aspect of it all has just begun. The victor AND the vanquished usually torment themselves to some degree.
A very small percentage that have "been there" have no idea what all the fuss is about. They are just wired differently. Grossman backs me up on that.
In the end, an individual's response to an ACTUAL self defense situation is a deeply personal one, and one that should be acknowledged by every martial arts instructor. To ignore these feelings is to ignore one of the more important aspects of self defense.
I will speak from both personal experience, Laird, and also from my qualifications as a trained systems physiologist.This is unusual, most people recall violence encounters in great detail. From Vans forum" Our visual perception alters so that we see everything in slow motion, which also allows us to concentrate better and use the extraordinary energy our body has made available.
This slow motion [Tachypsychia] phenomenon always accompanies life or death resistance and severe injury.
Also tunnel vision and auditory exclusion will be experienced"
You experienced none of this?
This is NOT an on/off thing. Every individual is unique. Whenever I was engaged in physiological experiments that led to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, it was necessary to test at LEAST six subjects before a journal would even look at it. And even then, one had to go through a rigorous process to quantify the variation within groups (one control subject vs. the next, one "treatment" subject vs. the next) vs. the variation between groups (control vs. "treatment"). I have commented on this before. We must be careful about making statements like "always." Always doesn't exist in real life.
BTW as an aside, one of the reasons my Avitar is the enso has to do with one of the many meanings of it. It's just a circle. But it isn't a perfect circle, is it? It cannot be precisely described by x^2 + y^2 = r ^2. Life never is perfectly or always anything. And that's the beauty of it!
Individuals respond to myriad stimuli in unique ways. And even when there is an extreme, life threatening stimulus, the various responses happen at different levels, depending on the individual's nature and his/her "initial conditions."
Let's take tachypsychia. The only time I have ever experienced what I would call "extreme" tachypsychia was when I was in a motorcycle accident and I thought I was going to die. I (thankfully) did the right thing and survived; I even walked away from it. But even then, I did what I did (aimed straight at a car that was going to sideswipe me, and then laid the bike down) almost as a person observing himself doing the act. It was programming of some kind taking over. It was not conscious choice.
I have experienced mild versions of what is described above (tachypsychia, auditory exclusion, tunnel vision) in various other situations in my life. Frankly when you experience a mild version of it, you probably aren't even aware of it. It may occur to you later on when you realize that what you though was a minute really was 20 or 30 seconds. It may come to you when it takes 2 or 3 calls from a friend to get your attention.
Now more to your specific question and comment...
The situations that I experienced that I would describe as self defense were over almost as fast as they started. As an example, a flurry was thrown at me and then I saw someone on the ground in front of me. And then I began to comprehend what had happened. In both engineering and physiology we study something called "transient responses." It takes time for many of the physiologic phenomena described by some in the self defense literature to happen. The shifting of blood to the core happens with a system that has a TWENTY SECOND time constant. Many self defense situations are over in a few seconds. A sports coach knows this, and it's a reason he calls time out in order to "ice" a competitor about to engage in a critical play. The best thing that can happen in a self defense situation is for something to happen before you have much time to think about it. Then the demons can't betray you.
Siddle and Laur also talk a great deal about what it takes to stay out of the extreme psychological/physiological zones so the warrior/LEO can operate in a peak zone. Too much of anything is a bad thing. Proper training, psychological conditioning, and breathing can do much to keep someone in an ideal "zone." Living life on an even keel - even in stressful situations - also helps.
And one final thing... These "sucker punch" situations happen when you least expect it. BECAUSE of that, the body doesn't necessarily perceive and react to a threat the way one does when a predator first interviews, then torments, and then finally assaults a person. Again, this speaks to initial conditions from a mathematical/physiological point of view.
So... I experienced what I experienced - my Forrest Gump-ism of the day.
Hope that helps clarify my thoughts.
- Bill
However when you read some of my posts, you will see the engineer/physiologist creeping in. I appreciate what you are trying to say.
to discuss why I personally believe that kyu- and dan-kumite can be useful even for advanced students. For me, the key is to move beyond the “plain vanilla” versions.
