Reverse Cowgirl Social Engineering

This blog can be used as a tool by anyone who wants to teach self-defense and effective rape prevention to women. It also will help folks who have ever been accused of 'blaming the victim' because they dared ask the very reasonable question: "What was she doing there in the first place?"

Get yourself a cup of coffee, there's a lot of propaganda that has to be waded through.

I recently had a conversation with someone who made a statement about something I'd been wrestling with for a while. It was an idea I hadn't been able to concisely put into words, but I knew something was seriously not right. Basically, the statement was something like this: Anytime someone attaches the word 'awareness' to a social or noble cause, it's a rip off.

Once it becomes about 'awareness,' it seems to be about everything else except fixing the problem. For example, how much of the money going to 'cancer awareness' actually goes into cancer research? Or paying for people who can't afford the treatments? Promoting alternative approaches? This in contrast to -- how much goes into paying office costs, making payroll (especially for executives, experts, and consultants), advertising, and promoting and organizing 'cancer awareness' walks and drives?

There's all kinds of 'problems' awareness campaigns try to solve. The biggest seems to be how to get your money from you -- whether through direct means (donations) or indirect (government funding and taxes). And believe me even when we're just talking federal grants, state, county, and municipal funding, we are talking a lot of money. Then comes the money they get from corporations, campaign drives, charities, and events. (If you want an eye opening experience take a look at the financial records of the big non-profits and see where the money is coming in from and where it's actually going.) There's a need to keep campaigning to keep the money flowing in.

Having said this, the most interesting aspect of this scam is how it is justified.

If I were to come up to you and say, "Give me lots of money for doing nothing that actually solves the problem," you'd tell me to take a flying carnal leap at a rolling doughnut. That's where 'raising awareness' comes in. See, the give-us-money-for-a-problem-we-won't-fix scam is cleverly hidden under the equally noble guise of 'education.' That's what raising awareness is: 'Educating people that the problem exists.'

Think about this for a second. Do you not know these problems exist?

But education is good, right? Education can solve all problems right? It could. But if I'm educating people about a subject, I get to control what people 'think' they know about the subject. Not know, but think they know. (I'm fond of saying 'most of what people think they know is advertising')

When I have this control, I can get people to react emotionally to carefully crafted information. That's important. I need you to 'think you know' what is going on, so you don't look any deeper than what I am telling you. I need you to emotionally react to this 'crisis' I'm 'educating' you about. Otherwise, you'll object to giving me money. (Or worse, you'll give it to some other cause.) The technical term for this is 'spin doctoring.'

That's the happy version. Certain 'noble causes' have crossed the line, however, from simple spin doctoring. They've crossed into intentionally misinterpreting data, twisting statistics, and lying and redefining terms -- all to make the problem sound worse than it is. Not that the real problem isn't bad enough, but you need big numbers for it to be a 'crisis.' Hence the spin, number inflation, constant campaigning, and lying for a good cause.

By raising your awareness, I also can manipulate you into believing by donating money or walking for a cause it means you're participating in the solution. You're doing something about it. You're doing good by giving money. With this strategy, I can justify my career, protect my job, ensure my income, and excuse myself for all the spin, misinformation and lies I'm providing (it's for a good cause after all, and you don't need to know all the dirty little details about how it works). But most of all, I can justify all the money I'm diverting from getting to the people who need help.

All the while I'm doing this, I'm make a huge production about the good and noble things I'm doing for such a just cause. The warm fuzzy is not just for you, it makes me feel good about myself and all the good I'm doing. In the end though, I'm doing exactly shit about aiding the people who need the actual help. The individuals who are suffering from, dealing with, or facing this problem are not benefiting, I am. Now mind you, this isn't corruption. Oh no. It's jobs. It's what I am being paid for and spending money on to raise your awareness.

Want an example? I have a friend who is involved in the health care side of the military. He's high up and does a lot of the project coordination. At the time, this military was building a hospital and a general came to him and said, "Look, I know this isn't your responsibility, but could you find space for these two rape counseling contractors in the new facility?"

His response? "Sure, let's see what they need."

He met with them to see what their needs were. The first thing they asked for was five rooms. A waiting room, two offices, and two counseling rooms. If you've ever been in a hospital, you know that's a big request. Space is at a premium. Oh and the offices had to be furnished and equipped with money from his budget for computers and copy machines. Then they demanded that the offices be located on the first floor and next to a side access door. This was, they told him, so the women they counseled didn't have to go through the shame of coming through the front door. My friend looked at this tab and had a hard time.

He then he asked them how many cases they'd handled the past year. Three. Three? What did they do with all the rest of their time? Well, they lectured, wrote pamphlets, raised awareness and educated people.  My friend was floored. All of this for three cases? But when he told them he could no way justify the expenses they were demanding (and this over and above their contractor fees), they went ballistic. But this man does not intimidate easily. The request was turned back over to the general, with the estimated expenses, and the problem went away. (Space was found elsewhere than in the hospital.)

I happen to know certain folks who consider three rape cases a day a light load. I know social workers who walk into hell holes every day because the people they deal with are in too bad a shape to come to them. They also work out of cubes or a cramped office they share with two others. I know a lot of hard working folks who are busting their asses to get people out of immediately dangerous situations. And who have to do it on shoe-string budgets because most the funding has been siphoned away to raise awareness and educate the public.

I'm sure people in other fields have their own horror stories about awareness raising, education, and nonprofits. Even with the previous example, I've been talking in generalized terms. Now I'm going to fall back to a field where I not only feel the awareness-raising-rip-off is rampant, but the so-called 'education' actually makes the problem worse.

You can make a lot of money in a career aimed at raising public awareness. But the topic I feel actually 'manufactures victims' is that of rape awareness. Because it creates its own victims, you can call it the "rape industry." And I have a serious problem with what they are selling as 'education.'

Now before I go on, there's something I have to make clear. I've met a lot of good people who really are trying to help in this field. They are compassionate, committed, and are really are trying to do good. They honestly believe in the information they are spreading. These people with the very best of intentions are trying to help raise awareness about sexual assault. Funny thing about them, though, most are volunteers. Those volunteers, as well as other low-paid individuals, serve as the front-line troops.

The thing about these hard working and dedicated volunteers is there is both an incredibly high turn-over rate and an endless supply of them. That is to say, people who really what to help. They come in, get 'educated,' work hard, burn out, and are replaced -- at an astounding rate.

Not to be a cynical bastard, but they're disposable. More than that, they are disposable before they start asking questions about what they are taught to say. (If what I've heard is true, questioning doctrine is the fastest way to be shown the door.

If you ask, these volunteers will tell you they have been through 'advocate training.' That's why they all literally sound the same. The same premises. The same canned rhetoric. The same stats. The same 'logic' and arguments. And they consistently promote the same formulaic information and doctrine. The faces change, but the looped message remains the same -- word for word.

First, you don't get this kind of doctrinal consistency across all 50 states without the presence of an organized effort to create it.

Second, the most predictable of all is the knee-jerk accusation: "You're blaming the victim."

This is the default attack strategy of rape awareness programs. You will hearit if you question their doctrine or if you say anything that does not conform to their 'educational' curriculum. Most of all, you'll hear it if you dare mention any pre-assault behavior on the part of the victim.

In concession, I will admit protecting the emotional comfort of the  victim is paramount to rape crisis programs following sexual assault. That is a good and necessary service.

But there's a difference between post-assault treatment and 'awareness.' Specifically, there is a huge disparity between dealing with the aftermath and rape prevention. In rape prevention, the statement of 'you're blaming the victim' has no place. That's because you cannot come up with effective rape prevention strategies if you do not assess common behavior that precedes rapes.

This is a big problem. First because "you're blaming the victim" rhetoric may protect the rape victim's feelings, but it shuts down any possible rational discussion about the subject (it's both a criticism and accusation, a.k.a. an attack).

Second, it's dangerous. By preventing discussion about safety measures (risk reduction), you increase other women's chances of being raped. You can't talk about what a woman can do to prevent being raped without an advocate claiming you're blaming the victim. If I really want to be catty, I could say -- by not allowing prevention to be discussed -- advocates ensure future clientele for the crisis centers.

Think I'm exaggerating?

I know a guy who is working his ass off to create useful communication and teaching models for personal safety, risk reduction, rape prevention, and self-defense. I heartily agree with his goals. Here is an excerpt from a letter he received from one of the biggest rape awareness organizations in the country. Take a look ...

"Self-defense is not a reasonable expectation to put on anyone who is in a shocking situation or who is being coerced. If we are to enforce social norms against anti social (sic) behaviors like sexual assault as you put it yourself, we need to see more emphasis put on the perpetrators (sic) behaviour (sic) rather than survivors, and not add to survivor blame."

That statement exemplifies why I object to the 'awareness approach' to the subject of rape. There are many things wrong with it and on many different levels.

According to that statement, women are incapable of keeping themselves from being raped. I vehemently object to this idea. Yet to truly understand the depth of my objection to that message, you should understand something about personal safety. That is: Nobody is more concerned about your personal safety than you. And if you think it's someone else's  job then -- whether you know it or not -- you're actively putting yourself into danger.

This is critical. A woman does have power to influence whether or not she is raped. If you find this statement objectionable, then I'd like to point to the billions of women on this planet who manage not to be raped every day. Competent, socially acclimated, self-assured and functional women somehow manage not to be raped. To these women I say, "Brava!" We probably should take a lesson from them about how they're managing to do this.

While it might seem I'm cynical, I'm not. In fact, I am deadly serious. Both about respecting competent women and looking at what they are doing to keep from becoming 'victims' of rape.

But this is something you will not hear from the rape awareness camps. But notice, there's something the awareness group's letter doesn't mention. They intentionally skip over it to get to the extreme of self-defense and why it is an unreasonable expectation. It is not only the elephant in the room, but they cannot teach it (or even talk about it) without directly contradicting their own rhetoric about blaming the victim.

And that is 'risk reduction.'

What can a woman do to affect her chances of being sexually assaulted? I mean actively and consciously do to increase or decrease her chances of being raped? That is what these programs refuse to address, instead they focus on "more emphasis put on the "perpetrators (sic) behaviour" (sic).

It is the refusal to discuss risk reduction that divorces most 'awareness' programs from reality. They have to take this stance. Why? Because they insist that a woman's pre-assault behavior has no bearing on her being attacked. The 'rapist' is to blame. The woman has no responsibility at all. They are adamant that pre-assault behaviors do not matter. And a woman has no control over whether she is raped or not.

If you accept this premise then, by default, risk reduction is meaningless.

I don't buy it. Women are not helpless victims, incapable of rational thought or positive action. Nor are they incapable of effective physical responses. They do have control over their lives. If that offends anybody's sensibilities, I'm sorry. But I happen to like competent, empowered women. Deal with it.

Yet according to the rape industry, women aren't capable of taking care themselves. They are all victims or potential victims. They are defenseless prey to sexual predators. (Oh by the way, all men are potential rapists too.) Remember girls, "Self-defense is not a reasonable expectation to put on anyone who is in a shocking situation."

Apparently risk reduction is also off the table. If you start talking about how a woman can take control to keep from being raped, you're 'blaming the victim.' And, as the writer of that letter would surely insist, insisting on teaching awareness and avoidance of potential dangerous situations only adds to shame ('survivor blame') of women who were raped. Remember: Pre-assault behavior doesn't matter. Mentioning it only shames and blames the victim.

I must be too stupid and insensitive to understand how all this works because I think risk reduction is a great idea. Teaching women how to  reduce their risk of danger does all kinds of things to keep individuals from being raped. It also adds to a woman's competence level and self-assurance. I personally don't see a downside here, but then again I don't make my money off the victimization of others.

Let's take a closer look at their jump over risk reduction to go straight to the extreme. Risk reduction is not self defense (punching and kicking). Risk reduction precedes self defense. It does not require the strength of Superwoman, kung fu mastery, or for a woman to get in touch with her inner fury to use it. In fact, a lot of people call it common sense. And it's really not that difficult:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/avoid_rape.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/bonding_process.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/escape.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

Why am I such a fan of risk reduction? Because it works.

In fact, it is more reliable than self defense.

See, I don't have a problem with the idea that physical self defense might be a problem for certain folks. I've spent my entire life trying to figure out ways smaller, weaker people can effectively stop assaults from bigger, stronger attackers. So yes, I do happen to know a thing or two about what is realistic and unrealistic about self defense.

For example, I happen to be pretty certain a 120-pound, middle class, 19-year-old, college co-ed with a blood alcohol content of .27 -- who sneaked into a frat house party using a false ID and spent the night binging on Jager shots -- is not going to be able to effectively defend herself from sexual assault.

Yet, my mention of these exact conditions prompted the head of one college rape crisis center to say -- to my face -- "A girl has the right to have fun."

Yes, that is a direct quote.

She at least was the most open about her bias against risk reduction. Most 'advocates' insist I'm trying to oppress women and take away their 'rights' when I talk about high-risk behavior not being a good idea.

Of course, I (being the old dinosaur I am) remember: "A woman should have the right to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested." That isn't just a direct quote, that was a popular awareness slogan from about 10 years ago.

Now call me a narrow-minded bigot, but that kind of thinking just doesn't make any sense to me. And it's not because I'm about oppressing women or taking away their rights. It's just that I live in a world where walking naked into a biker bar is a bad idea -- woman or man. Oddly enough, not too many women I know above the age of 30 tend to buy it, either. Mothers of teenage daughters get really vocal about their disagreement. But for some reason, those moms aren't being told they're suppressing women's rights when they say it.

Let's recap, you can't talk about high risk behavior and risk reduction because:
A) you blame the victim
B) you shame the victim
C) you interfere with a young woman's rights

These apparently are more important than a woman not getting raped. So the rape awareness educational program doesn't have self defense or risk reduction training -- because those are 'unrealistic' or oppressive.

By now you might be asking yourself, What do these programs teach? How do they raise awareness?

I call it 'Reverse Cowgirl Social Engineering.'

Before we go there, let's take a second look at the quote from the awareness and education group:

"Self-defense is not a reasonable expectation to put on anyone who is in a shocking situation or who is being coerced. If we are to enforce social norms against anti social (sic) behaviors like sexual assault as you put it yourself, we need to see more emphasis put on the perpetrators (sic) behaviour (sic) rather than survivors, and not add to survivor blame."

Everyone got that? Now let's add the next lines:

"We believe that if people are more supportive towards survivors and effectively hold perpetrators accountable for their actions than (sic) that will communicate and enforce against perpetrator behavior rather than placing responsibility on survivors who are already going through enough. To be clear we do not see self-defense as the way to hold them accountable as the onus is on the victim."

Wait until I tell you the current approach to rape awareness is to 'educate' the assailants.

They teach  it's the responsibility of the rapist to know that attacking a woman is wrong, and he shouldn't do it. Rape is wrong. Rape is bad. You shouldn't do it. Bad rapist! Bad! That is the current tact of rape awareness education in a nutshell. They are trying to change the 'rape culture' of society.

I personally find this approach insulting to good men. A waste of time for rapists. And pretty meaningless to those men who would be on the fence because of age, inexperience, drugs, or booze. Yet this is what currently constitutes raising awareness and education regarding rape. The reasoning for this new and enlightened approach of educating the rapist? It avoids victim shaming.

At the same time it dismisses pre-assault behavior as facilitating the assault and denies risk reduction has any effect.

All that talk about the onus being on the victim? Apparently a woman shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of ensuring her own personal safety. If she incapacitates herself or puts herself into a dangerous situation, we are not allowed to consider these contributing factors to the end result. We especially can't talk about these behaviors as they increase your chances of getting raped. The potential for retraumatization of the victim is too great.

While I must admit I do not understand the exact trauma of being raped, I do understand the psychological impact of serious trauma. I also understand the fear and confusion of having your world view crushed. I understand this on a very deep and horrific level (there's a reason I have problems with the use of the word 'survivor' regarding non-life-threatening situations). I personally know what it's like to have your life shattered by violence. I know how fragile and how difficult it is to put your life back together again. Yet, I still find a fundamental flaw with the current 'educational strategy' based on protecting a victim's sense of self-worth at all costs. A flaw that I can exemplify by an anecdote about cowgirls and livestock.

I'm originally from the urban sprawl that is Los Angeles. So when I married into a ranching family, my education took a distinct turn. Where I grew up there were lots of ways to die; many of them having to do with whom you pissed off. Oddly enough where my wife and in-laws are from, the fastest way to get killed or injured is also brought about by by your behavior. But not in the sense that some pissed off local would shoot you. It was because because a 2,000-pound future Big Mac would crush you flat.

When you're dealing with livestock, your behavior is important. My wife often told me I moved to fast for animals (apparently she didn't see the irony of that). She'd tell me to slow down and smooth out my movements, how exactly to move, and what not to do to spook large animals.  Would they hurt me out of malice? No, but if I got careless or acted a certain way, bad things would happen. Not because I was a bad person or because I 'deserved it,' but because in those circumstances certain behavior is dangerous and tends to end badly.

Basically anytime you are around large animals, you need to exercise some awareness and caution. There are certain conditions where you really need be on the ball. Having worked the pens and alleys of the family cattle outfits during weaning, I can tell you that's definitely a place you need to have your game on.

I'd also like to note, out among the livestock, the women of the family are just as competent and hardworking as the men.  No muss, no fuss, that's life on the ranch. At the risk of getting a frosty comment or six next Thanksgiving, these women are all competent 'cowgirls.' (It's calling them cowgirls, not competent that will get me the hairy eyeball.) Got the idea? Women functioning safely in a potentially dangerous environment.

The reverse cowgirl analogy is that 'awareness advocates' don't want to teach women how to be competent cowgirls. Instead, they want to educate the livestock.

See, if you educate the livestock that a drunken cowgirl has the right to crawl into the pens and that it is wrong to hurt her, this will keep her safe. You don't have to teach women how to stay safe. That's the livestock's responsibility. The reverse cowgirl can do anything she wants, and she won't get hurt because the big, bad, one-ton herd bull has been educated not to trample her.

This is deemed 'empowering' these young ladies. It is their 'right' not to get gored, crushed, trampled, or in any way hurt.

If they do get trampled when they're in the pen, it's all the livestock's fault. No matter how much the cowgirl reduced her capacities and actively put herself into dangerous circumstances. That had nothing to do with it. Society is to blame. The livestock should have known its place! It's been educated that hurting cowgirls is wrong!

Really, seriously ... nothing possibly bad could happen by not teaching urban cowgirls' risk reduction or even *gasp* self defense. The blame is all on the livestock if a cowgirl gets hurt.

People get hurt with this approach. Safety is not about blame, it's about people not getting raped. I'm not joking when I say this approach manufactures victims. Does it encourage rape? No. But it sure as hell keeps young women from learning -- much less practicing -- risk reduction.

Without risk reduction as a precursor that advocacy group is right, self defense is an unrealistic expectation. A young woman who has been told her safety is someone else's responsibility isn't going to be able to effectively defend herself when attacked. That's because any attack will be unexpected and shocking.

I'll  admit 'reverse cowgirl social engineering' may look like an over-the-top analogy. But it's not as over the top as it might seem (we're about to show you the whole letter). Before we do, let's look at the obvious 'flaw' in the livestock analogy.

First, as it was pointed out to me by someone who promotes 'rape awareness education,' rapists aren't docile livestock, but predators. Predators who make a conscious choice, yada, yada, yada.

Well, yeah. People who self-identify themselves as rapists are predators, and they do make conscious choices to set up and sexual assault women -- usually long before the assault.

But in that situation, they can be likened to a snaky bull (that's a cowboy term for a mean and dangerous animal that intends to hurt you). Oddly enough though, the same tactics that keep you safe in the pens with a normal bull also work with a dangerous one. And the same behavior that places you in danger with a normal one really put you in danger with a snaky one. In other words, there is a consistency about behavior in dangerous situations.

Second, not every 'sexual assault' is committed by a sexual predator. If you've ever dealt with drunken teenagers and college students the lack of intelligence and bad decision-making does resemble bovine stupidity. Add to this when intoxicated, they tend to be obtuse and often dangerous. (I know this because not only was I one of them once, but I spent decades dealing with them when they are drunk, stupid, and unwittingly dangerous.) Bovine stupidity isn't as far fetched as it sounds as an overwhelming majority of incidents involve excessive drug and alcohol consumption -- by both parties.

Beginning to see where I have a problem with the current approach of 'rape awareness education?' It's based on the premise that drunk horny teens are going to remember whose responsible for the equally drunk -- or even more intoxicated -- girl's safety.

I mean call me stupid, but how can you empower someone and at the same time claim they have no responsibility for their own actions and choices? How do you help women not to be raped if you refuse to talk about risk management or self defense? Not only refuse to teach those proactive measures, but actively try to shut down anyone who dares question reverse cowgirl engineering? How do you do that? By claiming that anyone not teaching reverse cowgirl social engineering is "blaming the victim" or has unrealistic expectations.

This is the elephant in the room about 'rape awareness.' Such education is notto help women to keep from being raped. On the higher level, it's mostly about promoting the business of making money off the aftermath of rape. It's about setting oneself up as the protector of people and encouraging a victim mindset that women are incapable of taking care of themselves so they must rely on these programs to look out for them, their safety and rights.

On the front line volunteer level you're not helping women who haven't been raped to keep it that way. More than that, you're undermining your credibility by parroting the party line. Outside the advocate trained, reverse cowgirl social engineering doesn't make sense to people, risk reduction does.

Think I'm making this up? I'd like to give you the whole chapter and verse of the e-mail a volunteer sent to the guy trying to share the personal safety model. Tell me if you see any Reverse Cowgirl Social Engineering in it:

We have taken some time to read through your material and although we applaud how easy it is to read, we feel that it also perpetuates some of the myths we are trying to combat. For instance, on your organizations website, when you speak of teaching vulnerable populations self defense as a means to enforce respectful social norms it does not clearly communicate that perpetrators are not people who respect social norms and therefore are unlikely to respect the enforcement you speak of. We have spoken to many survivors over the past decade and many of them talk about the shame and guilt they feel for not being able to prevent their own assault, one of our clients even had their (sic) black belt in Karate. The problem the majority of the time is not that they were a vulnerable population that was targeted by some anti-social creep but rather someone (sic) they knew and trusted abused that trust and assaulted them, and they reacted in shock or submission to coercion. Self-defense is not a reasonable expectation to put on anyone who is in a shocking situation or who is being coerced. If we are to enforce social norms against anti social (sic) behaviors like sexual assault as you put it yourself, we need to see more emphasis put on the perpetrators (sic) behaviour (sic) rather than survivors, and not add to survivor blame. We believe that if people are more supportive towards survivors and effectively hold perpetrators accountable for their actions than (sic) that will communicate and enforce against perpetrator behavior rather than placing responsibility on survivors who are already going through enough. To be clear we do not see self-defense as the way to hold them accountable as the onus is on the victim.

Did you notice the admission that 'perpetrators' don't respect social norms right before they talk about the need of 'educating' the rest of society about enforcing social norms? Or how they refuse to address risk reduction in the model, instead only emphasizing the self-defense aspect? Which they deem unrealistic.

Did you know a woman breaking the jaw of a guy who is trying to rape her really is an effective way of enforcing the social norm of "no means no!"? Apparently they don't.

Let me ask the parents who are reading this, do you really want your daughter to be taught to be a reverse cowgirl? Or do you want her to be taught risk reduction, rape prevention strategies, and, if all that fails, have her know self defense?

Let me ask martial arts and women's self defense instructors this: How much do you teach risk reduction (and how important it is to a person's ability to engage in physical self defense)? Or do you just teach punching and kicking and call it 'self-defense'? Is the information you share oriented toward avoidance and prevention, instead of simply trying to fight a bigger, stronger attacker?

Let me ask the people involved in rape awareness programs, do you want to reduce the number of rapes?

Or is your focus on helping women during the aftermath? Teaching skills for coping with the aftermath is a very important service. It is something you know very well and are good at.

But what is needed in the aftermath is not the same as proactive risk reduction and prevention. The priorities are different to prevent rape. Accurate information about danger, social dynamics, risk assessment, risk reduction and -- when all else fails -- self-defense are needed for prevention. These are what young women need to be hearing about to help them keep from getting raped.

Having said that, there's a lot of good people out there who are willing to help you develop better, more realistic programs to prevent rape. People who know violence and criminals. People who know how they operate and can help you develop effective  risk reduction strategies to teach.

Let's not let 'shame' and 'blame' get more people hurt.

Marc MacYoung
Copyright 2012

Can you teach self-defense if you haven't 'been there?"

I am often asked that question. Can someone who hasn't spent years fighting teach you anything about self-defense?

Well aside from the first glaring error that fighting is not self-defense, the answer is "It depends." It depends on something very specific. Below is my answer to someone who asked this very question.

**********

The answer lies in the information, not necessarily the teacher.

What is important is that the information is accurate, legit, complete, applicable and all kinds of other words that go under the general heading of 'good.'

If it's bad, it doesn't matter how much experience the teacher has or doesn't. It's still bad information. If it is good, it's less important that the instructor has experienced it first hand.

I had a friend, who was shipped to Afghanistan. One of the problems with IEDs (improvised explosive devices) is -- if they don't kill you -- they can flip the vehicle. The armor on the Humvees has gotten a lot better, but flipping and rolling is still an issue. The Army, as part of pre-deployment training, has you get inside the cab of a Humvee that is attached to a giant 'flipping machine.' You are then rotated over and have to practice getting out of a 'rolled vehicle.' After you get that basic skill down, they start training you in different scenarios (half flips, one of your guys is wounded, this door is jammed, etc., etc.). These different scenarios, acquaint you with realistic possibilities and challenges you will face if it happens to you. In short, they teach you how to think and function under these circumstances.

Do you think the guys teaching that course have been blown up and flipped in a Humvee? Do they have to have been?

No.

What is important is that this situation happens. It is a known problem. Here are the conditions. Here is the most effective training in response to that. If it happens to you, this is what you do. We've got proven, stable and reliable data people who do this have a much better chance of survival. In short, what matters is the information, not whether you've been blown up before.

To be clear, this information and training is based on data collected from people who have been there. It also has been vetted by those same people. Not just one guy, but a lot of experienced people.

The information is not a "well, I think this is what happens" by someone who has never been there or doesn't understand the subject. As a friend of mine once put it, "Do you know the actual problem or are you just guessing?"

Unfortunately, entirely too many people who 'haven't been there' are guessing what it's like -- based on their training. (How do I apply what I know to what I don't know about violence?) As such, they often come up with fantasy solutions to fantasy problems. (Or as Peyton Quinn sums it up: "They come up with ingenious solutions to nonexistent problems.") This technique works reliably in the street ... right? Well no, but by gawd, the next time you get attacked by a midget riding a Shetland pony, you'll be ready with that flying side kick.

But that's not going to stop a lot of folks from teaching that tournament-winning-move and claiming it is not only self-defense, but a battlefield tested technique from their traditional martial art.

Or they take limited personal experience and extrapolate it to cover every kind of violence. I've seen entirely too much training by 'studs,' who are teaching you to win your next high school fight. Incidentally, this stuff *will* work to win a fight. Unfortunately, it will get your ass killed in other kinds of violence where the goals and rules are different than that of a 'fight.'

I say 'unfortunately' because not using the definition of self-defense found in the dojo/gym, but using instead a more legal one, actual self-defense is more likely to involve you facing those other kinds of violence. Self-defense is not about fighting, so training someone to fight and calling it 'self-defense' is going the wrong way. Training to fight doesn't prepare you to handle the kind of stuff you'll be facing in the other kinds of violence.

Oh yeah, it'll also get your ass arrested, prosecuted and convicted because 'fighting' is illegal. And -- if you're being taught a weapons system -- you might as well buy a dildo and practice sucking it and sitting on it because you're going to end up in the prison showers. That's both with what they're teaching you and what they're not (like Use of Lethal Force laws and consequences).

This is why I say there are only two problems with most training. One is when it doesn't work. The other is when it does.

It helps to think of the subject of 'self-defense' as a multicircle Venn diagram. (Those diagrams with overlapping circles. Each circle is a different issue, topic or factor by itself -- but where they overlap with something else, they mutate into something that is neither one nor the other.) Self-defense is in the middle of all those circles. There are lots of overlapping factors. Things that can spell the difference between you being safe, alive and free or, going to the hospital or prison.

When you ask can someone who hasn't been there, be good at teaching 'self-defense,' the real answer is a question. Is the person teaching these multiple factors?

If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

Oh and BTW, it doesn't matter if the person *has* been there. If he or she is not teaching these factors, then she or he sucks at teaching you 'self-defense.' He may be doing a smash-up job teaching you how to fight or get convicted for murder, but that ain't self-defense.

So experience isn't as important as the quality of the information. (I'll add a caveat to this in a bit -- where it really does matter having been there -- but for the moment let's just stick with the quality of the information being provided.)

One of the *best* introductory books about 'what is missing' from most training is "Facing Violence" by Rory Miller.

Having said that, I will also tell you: It is *not* the final word on the subject. I tell you that so you don't read it and think, "Okay now I know that, so now I can teach it." It's an important introduction to what you don't know you don't know. You'll have multiple boatloads of subject matter you'll need to research after reading it. But now you have seven specific topics you know you need to research in order to provide quality training.  (And I hate to tell you this kiddies, but if it wasn't included in your training then you weren't taught 'self-defense.')

For example, do you teach your students how to make a statement to the police after an incident? Do you teach your students how to articulate their use of force decisions? Do you teach them how to recognize and assess developing danger? Do you teach them conflict de-escalation and how to assess options? Do you teach them how their own behavior is going to either add to their claim of self-defense or convict them when they admit to a crime by claiming 'self-defense?'

Oh while we're at it, you should know that threat assessment and articulation aren't just legal issues. They're critical personal safety strategy that can safely extract you from a potentially dangerous situation or -- if things get ugly -- are critical components of overcoming the freeze response. Again, this information isn't just 'legal,' it's a critical step in being able to act.

It's also critical for choosing the appropriate level of force. You don't want to try to 'fight' a guy with a gun or knife. That's an entirely different level of force, one that will get you killed if you try to fight (No matter how 'hard' you do it.) Nor do you want to go all MMA and ground and pound an obnoxious drunk because that will put you into jail -- if not prison -- if he dies or is turned into a vegetable because you jackhammered his head on the concrete.

Of course where I grew up, the cops were the least of your problems. If you hurt someone like that, his family and friends would come gunning for and kill or cripple you for what you did to one of their own. (Have you ever heard a 'self-defense instructor' talk about the problems of vendetta? Or did they just dismiss it because by knowing this deadly system you'll be able to handle that too? Let me tell you children, someone stepping out of the shadows with a shotgun isn't something that should be poo-pooed by studly combatives instructors. Vendettas are just as real as legal consequences.)

One of the things I am very big on teaching my students is first how to judge the necessary degree of force (and if you even have to go there at all) and then how to apply it. I tell them you don't want to unleash your killer, commando, 'no rules in a street fight' combative system on Drunken Uncle Albert at a family reunion. But neither do you want to try to use what works on Albert against a guy coming at you with a weapon in a dark and lonely place.

You don't get that kind of training in places where you are taught to blitz any and every problem. Nor do you get it in places where people just throw courtesy punches that stop six inches from your nose. And if you're not getting it, it means your instructor doesn't know the subject matter -- whether she or he has been there or not.

I did tell you that there is a place where experience does matter. Well actually there's 1.5 places. That's because there are two places that are each worth .75. Let's start with the first one.

That is experience teaches you what is important when the fecal matter is encountering the oscillating blades. That is to say there's lots of information that is important to know in a training setting and in relation to the subject. However, that becomes of secondary importance in the heat of the moment. But here is a follow up however to the first one: Although these things become secondary, that doesn't mean they don't strongly influence the primary issues.

Easy way to explain this A,B,C,D,E. In the classroom they are all discussed. If they are given equal value by the instructor, the student can walk away thinking A,b,c,d,e is the order of priority. A person who has been there, does that knows that in a situation, a,b,c and d all influence E, but E is the priority -- at that moment. Hopefully said instructor will know how to explain this while still including A,B,C and D in the training.

The reason I say this is a .75 issue, is that well constructed program, vetted by numerous sources (who have been there) will emphasize these points. In other words, it doesn't really matter if the person hasn't been there, if he or she knows what needs to be emphasized. So again, you have something where experience matters, but it can be worked around -- IF the person who hasn't been there is willing to listen to those who have about what is important. This instead of deciding on his/her own about what should be emphasized. (This incidentally is my bitch regarding so much academic work on this subject.)

Another place where experience does tend to matter is when it comes to 'off the curriculum' questions.

These are the kinds of questions that every teacher is going to run into. I'm not talking about 'what if monkeys' (the guys who ask what do you do when you're walking through a dark alley and you're attacked by 27 ninja with uzis). I'm talking about legitimate questions about stuff that is not on the syllabus, but is related to the topic.

The reason this gets a .75 as well is this: On one hand a person with experience can reach back into their own history and answer the question with what he or she did, experienced and felt. (Often these questions have to do with overcoming internal issues.) Furthermore, an experienced person can often take in the information in the question, assess it and come up with a functioning answer. So for on-the-spot responses, experience can be a powerful tool.

On the other hand, one person's experience does not the whole subject make. What's more, just because the instructor could do it, doesn't mean the student can. There are a lot of variables that went into the experienced person's success in those particular circumstances -- and this includes mental and physical capabilities. So just because it worked for him, doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone. More over, different people who have been there came up with different answers. Answers that also worked. Keep this last in mind because it's important.

It's important because there can also be a downside to experience. That is, when you've had someone try and kill you, you can get extremely conservative about 'what works.' Some people take it past that and get into 'MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY!" This is especially true if they develop the curriculum and didn't have it vetted by others who have also been there. So yes, the instructor can fall back on his experience, but his experience isn't the only way to handle the problem.

The reason 'off the syllabus' questions and experience is a .75 issue is both someone who has been there and someone who hasn't need to use the same strategy for dealing with them. That is referencing the views of other people who have been there.

The thing to consider is that often these kinds of questions are generally predictable. As an instructor you will be asked these kinds of questions. That means you can prepare for them. For example, someone who hasn't been there can still answer these kinds of questions with "About that, Marc MacYoung says (this). Rory Miller says (this). Peyton Quinn says (this)." A person who has been there can also use the same tactic. "I say (this). Marc MacYoung says (this). Rory Miller says (this)." In both cases, this allows the student to consider different points of view and assessment of what he/she is asking about.

Why is this important?

Let me put it to you in these terms: I've spent nearly five decades fighting, engaging in violence, dealing with its repercussions, training, preparing, studying, researching, writing, teaching and lecturing about violence. I am a court-recognized expert witness. I have taught police and military in nine different countries and have over 22 titles published about violence, crime avoidance, personal safety and professional use of force. I tell you this to put something into perspective.

Every morning I get up and am nearly overwhelmed by what I don't know about the subject of violence.

So you ask can someone who has 'not been there teach?' Well, the bottom line is nobody has been everywhere. Everyone has holes in his or her experience and can only rely on both getting and providing quality information regarding the subject.

For example: I recently had a discussion about what to do with an ambush attack from point blank range; an attack meant to kill you. That's a situation I have been in multiple times. The guy I was talking to, however, had a specific circumstance I'd never dealt with before. That was what to do when the guy grabs your carbine with one hand, jerks the barrel off line and swings a machete at you with the other hand.

Now this is the kind of problem a civilian isn't likely to have. It is a problem likely to pop up with SWAT officers and people in his line of work. The point is, the response we were discussing had been vetted in actual situations where one of the participants was going to die. The response works to keep the person with the carbine alive. How do we know this? Because the guy with the carbine wasn't decapitated, and the other guy was dead.

In contrast, I see a lot of people who charge a lot of money for these super cool techniques they come up with. They claim these moves will work, and people get all giggly and excited by practicing them in high-priced seminars. When I look at them, I see techniques that at the very best will result in double kills. At worst, they'll fail miserably because of the actual physics of such circumstances. Not imagined, but actual physics.

The person who came up with these groovy, cool, studly responses had never been in those circumstances or checked the feasibility of those moves with someone who had.

I consider this vetting process critical because as a 'teacher,' you are putting your students' lives on the line with the quality of the information you provide. Not just their lives, but large chunks of it if they go to prison for what you didn't teach them about violence and self-defense.

Like the IED/Humvee training, it doesn't matter that much if you've been there or not. What matters is the quality of the information you provide (and whether it's been checked and vetted by people who know that topic). As an instructor, whether you're experienced or not, don't ever give into the temptation to think you know it all. Keep on researching and trying to learn.

As a student, don't believe anyone who gives critical topics about violence a 'hand wave.' ("Oh we teach that, too" before they drop the subject and then get on with the cool macho shit and ass kicking.) Be an informed consumer because you're staking your life on the quality of the information you're paying for.

M

Writing credible action scenes and characters

I was surprised to discover that I was a writer's resource. What? Who me? Why?

One of the authors summed it up this way "You've lived the life we write about."

Ummm... errrr.... well, maybe. The reason for my hesitation is that it was a romance writer who told me that. (Okay on the going head to head with dangerous people, but a guy named "Animal" and wooing? Not so much. But thanks for thinking of me.

I've written elsewhere about some of the problems with how writers handle 'alpha' characters and what traps not to fall into http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/alphablogone.htm

Today I want to talk about not the standing around and looking heroic part, but more the mindset of those who aren't afraid to go hands on.

Three things about keeping your character from being a bully:
#1 The best don't want to do it
#2 The decision to act is a rational one based on an assessment of the situation; it's NOT an emotional or pride based one.
#3 If they are forced to do it, it's not going to be a long drawn out fight.

Here's an important safety tip about violence -- it's dangerous. You can get hurt. In fact, if you want to get all mathematical about it, technically speaking, half of the people involved in a two-person 'fight' lose. That means ANY time your character engages in violence he knows there's a 50/50 chance of it going wrong for him.

The good one's stack the deck. One of the best ways to stack the deck is NOT to engage in two-person, head to head, 'fight.'

Oh BTW, the bad guys also know this. This is why they show up with extra numbers, weapons and set you up. This gives you, the writer, a chance for some dramatic tension. A good way to explain it is it's like cheating at cards. It's easy to 'win' when you (or your side) is the only one cheating. It's a whole different game when EVERYONE is cheating. More than that, they all know they're cheating yet nobody is going to come out and admit that is what is going on.

That is until the situation explodes. Then it boils down to who's better at stacking the deck before hand.

An example is a group of three guys roll up on your character. Now, simple law of survival. NEVER allow yourself or your character to be surrounded by bad guys. Unlike in the movies when bad guys surround you they don't politely wait to attack you one at at time. Often two will attack simultaneously while the real bad ass hangs back (yeah, he's using them as cannon fodder). Still if they're young punks the 'stud' (who's trying to prove himself) will be leading the set up as they try to surround your character.

No matter what the dynamics of the group are, think of them trying to set up a triangle with your character in the middle. This is their set up. This is exactly what your character DOESN'T want to allow to happen. What's best is that he keeps them all in front of him and at a good distance. And yes, calmly telling them 'that's close enough' does wonders for telling 'cheaters' that you know how to cheat too. Because people who know how the game is played know they don't want to be surrounded. So y'all can stay on your side of the line.

At this time the bad guys have a choice. Did they stack the deck enough? Do they have what it takes to overwhelm your character? Or should they wisely decide to back off? Well, wise doesn't sell books. But
A) stupid, young dumb and full of cum (against an experienced fighter)
B) your character is young and/or female and the bad guys overrate themselves OR
C) this is a professional job
does give you reason for an action scene.

A solid tactic when dealing with multiple attackers is "Line Dancing." (This is primarily for empty handed fight scenes, but the same dynamics apply to weapons.) Obviously, don't let them triangulate on your character, but your character wants everyone in a line with him or her on the end. See if you got three guys lined up with your character on either end, that means they have to get around each other in order to attack him at once. This kind of neutralizes the advantage of superior numbers, dontcha know?

Remember how I mentioned the different group dynamics of the guys coming at your character. That's an important issue of target selection in what I fondly call "Bowling for Assholes."

My oldest living friend "Doc" has certain rules when it comes to weapons. His third one is "Anything longer than it is wide can be used as a weapon -- this includes the guy who is with the guy who's in your face." Thus is the essence of bowling for assholes.

If you assign danger levels to the players, you get he's the most dangerous. He's the second most dangerous. He's third. The two you want to remove from the running ASAP are #1 and #2. This doesn't matter if they're amateurs or pros. Your character wants them out of commission first.

You're character has already communicated, stay back there boys (Indicating he doesn't want to go there at all.) And yet they just keep on coming. *Sigh -- I hate it when that happens.* Worse, they're trying to triangulate on him. Now your character knows nothing good can come from this. This brings us to point two, what's about to happen is a rational decision based on immediate threat.

They're going for the set up. Not going to happen. That means before they can triangulate on him he steps forward, grabs one and throws him. Believe it or not, (unless your character is a moose) the easiest and fastest way to do this is with what's known in line dancing as the grapevine step. You (your character) grabs on, steps behind and across so you're all twisted up (the deeper you step the better) Except unlike the actual grapevine step, you then pirouette. Basically you untwist yourself and end up facing the other direction. This doesn't sound like much, but it is one of the fastest and most powerful throws you can do. Basically it uses your entire body weight to drag the guy off balance and whips him around like a sling. (Ladies, you didn't hear this from me, but it's great for handling grabby drunks at the office party) Because of the mechanics of this move you can aim the guy you're throwing into another person (Doc's third rule).

They both go down ass over tea kettle.

Here's where the group dynamics of the bad guys come into play. If they're punks, you're hero grabs dangerous guy #1 and throws him into dangerous guy #2. In situations like this #3 often decides to beat feet (would you want to tangle with someone who just ate the lunch of two guys you know you couldn't beat?). In more serious situations, your character throws #2 into #1 then drops #3. This allows him to deal with 1 and 2 one at a time as they get up. Oh yeah, both being thrown into someone and having someone thrown into you REALLY hurts. Add to that you get all tangled up when you hit the ground.. It's not unrealistic that one or both don't get up.

If it's just two of them and your character young and female, they don't get up before she beats feet out of there. Or if you'd rather she can kick them in the face as they're trying to get up, Such behavior sounds brutal, but in environments where reprisals are common, doing so tends to get the message across that this one is best left alone. (Although you could use her not kicking his teeth in and the bad guy losing 'face' as a reason for further action against your character.

Elapsed time of bowling for assholes move? About two seconds tops. Moving into position and then doing it. So how do you build suspense? Well, the dance of them trying to triangulate, your character preventing it... until suddenly oh my oh my! Your character, who had been doing so well until now, screws up and steps into a position in line where he/she is not at the end anymore (putting him/herself into a pincer move.) The glee, the chortling, the evil cackles of the bad guys as they think your character screwed up...

WHAM!

owwwwwww...

Notice how this move conforms to the third point I made about not wanting to 'fight.' The more experienced and competent your character is, the faster he or she wants violence over. More than that, the more he or she is going to stack the deck in a game of cheaters. Like accidentally- on- purpose stepping between bad guys before going bowling.

Now in case you missed it, your character is going to have to think. To know what the subtle danger signs are. To have certain attitudes and an understanding of what kinds of subtle danger signals occur in dangerous and violent situations. But to do that, you need to know it too. Understanding how violent people think is critical for writing believable action scenes.

Well it just so happens that I know about a book that will show you this kind of information (See, I told you we were sneaky bastards). The book is call "Campfire Tales From Hell: Musings on Martial Arts, Survival, Bouncing and Other Thug Stuff."

It's a collection of essays by people who lived (and in many cases still do live) the lives of your characters. It's all the kinds of information -- other than just busting heads -- that people, who survive in dangerous and extreme environments, know and use to stay safe. You want to write believable characters and tense action scenes? Get it from the people who live it -- many of whom are even sneakier than I am.

You can get it as an e-book for $7.99.

Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Campfire-Tales-From-Hell-ebook/dp/B0083XYSWM

Smashwords/Nook - https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/163062

Give it a shot. But, you better be careful, you might just learn something...

Are you getting screwed by your 'self-defense' training?

When it comes to self-defense, many people want one-stop-shopping. Man, if they know this one ultimate martial art style, it's is all they need.

I hear this a lot. Usually in the form of being asked, ‘which martial art style is best for self-defense?’ Or ‘what do you think about (fill in the blank) for self-defense?’ Even more I see statements like “MMA/combatives is the closest you can get to REAL fighting.”

Every time I hear this kind of thinking. I have a strong urge to throw up.

I ought to buy stock in Tums. Get some of the money back I’ve invested by needing to have a bottle of the stuff constantly on hand. Because I’ll tell you, I hear this nonsense a lot.

I don’t hold the people who are asking me these questions responsible for my indigestion. (The ones talking about ‘real’ violence are another story.) The questioners honestly don’t know any better. I’ve started explaining to them most of what they think they know about self-defense, violence and fighting is advertising.

To be more specific, it is information tailored to fit with what they think they know about violence -- based on Hollywood images, high school memories and their own fertile imaginations – package up and sold to them as ‘self-defense.’ While that statement is accurate, it a really complicated way of saying ‘They’re selling you fantasy solutions to fantasy problems.’

That’s where one-stop-shopping starts creeping in. Keep this in mind, we’ll come back to it. Right now I want to talk about tool development. In doing so I hope I’ll help you see things a little clearer about why ‘self-defense’ isn’t a one-stop-shopping kind of problem.

Someone recently sent me a couple of Youtube links to a ‘master’ of ‘combat tai chi.’ (Well, there’s some marketing right there.) He asked me what I thought. Here’s my reply…

********

From a tai chi movement standpoint, he moves like a pregnant yak.

For a Hollywood action flick, he moves perfectly. His movement is slow, gross, choppy and stopping mid-action. Which makes it so the camera can see what he's doing. The movement looks dramatic and cool for the camera. This so the viewer can track it (especially because of the pauses).

For an advertisement selling his videos to people who don't know what violence/ fighting actually is, his gross movement is awesome, cool, kick ass and "wowie kazowie let me run right out and put my money down for training and videos."

Knowing this is important because a good tai chi player can nail you so hard that even Google won't be able to find you. It will have power based on structure and VERY subtle movement. Movement that, not only the camera won't see (look across the room and squint, that's what the camera sees), but also not visible to the untrained naked eye.

Yeah you see tai chi guy stick his arm out, but the reason the other guy gets knocked on his butt is because of the subtle body movement the tai chi player does. The arm is more the delivery system.

And it ain't just 'hits' there's all kinds of weird angling and twisting that go into it so as to create serious ‘this sucks’ physics. Well, it sucks if you're on the receiving end of it. In all honesty, as much as boxers know how to hit hard, I'd rather take a punch from a boxer than a blow from someone who knows how to apply his/her tai chi on the proper angles. It's either get knocked on your butt or have things break -- and if the tai chi guy is good, you get both. A boxer can knock you across the room, a tai chi player can nail you into the ground. Lemme tell you, the human body is not designed to be used as a nail.

Now let me address another issue. Despite having awesome physics, Tai chi won't teach you how to fight or how to defend yourself.

I'm going to use a weird analogy here. Let's liken self-defense to fixing your car. Tai chi is like a tool box. It's filled with some damned fine quality tools. But, just having the tools won't teach you how to fix your car. You also have to know how to use them. Oh, while we're at it, when it comes to fixing your car, you have to read the manual on how to do that too.

Except there's a problem, you don't know how to read. Without that knowledge, that manual is pretty useless. Being able to read helps with determining if this the right manual in the first place. And oh yeah, just reading the manual won't get your car fixed either, you actually have to pick up your tools and do it yourself -- after you've correctly diagnosed the problem. Even if you have the tools, changing the tires isn't going to help you replace a broken fan belt. That’s why good diagnostic skills are also important.

Is having the tools critical for fixing your car? You betcha. But having tools is only one of the many critical elements you need to have in order to get the job done.

Now, I can't speak for 'Master' Who-Flung-Poo’s instructional videos. The things you talk about him mentioning are, are in fact, very important for proper tool development. But remember having good tools while very important, is not the same as knowing how to use them. Much less knowing how to fix your car.

Conversely, knowing how to fix your car is equally useless without tools or having tools that break on you as you're trying to use them (hence the need for good tools).

Tai chi can give you really good tools and teach you how to use them. However, the way that it's normally taught tends to be more oriented on different directions (e.g. building a house). Self-defense is a very specific set of needs and knowledge. While a lot of tools cross over, there are somethings that are very specialized and unique to that subject. Things you will not learn from the martial arts. (Like, oh say, the legal definition and boundaries of what self-defense is).

******************

For the record, let me state that it’s been my experience that tai chi is awesome tool development. They are really good about structure and power transfer. We’re talking the Snap-On Tools of the martial arts. And doing tai chi can take whatever style you do already and turn your tools into Dewalt, Craftsman and Milwaukee. In the same way that boxing will improve your punching skills and muay Thai will improve your kicking skills. That’s because you take what you learn there and apply it to your own style. (Different styles emphasize different elements and concepts. Those elements are what make that style effective. It’s not the style itself.)

A big, big problem with a whole lot of what is being taught out there is their physics suck. (Many commercialized schools have even lost the elements and concepts that made the style effective.) The body mechanics of the techniques (tools) they’re teaching are aweful. I’m not talking about even Walmart quality tools. I’m talking the cheap crap you pick up at a swap meet or out of the back of a van. Tools that not only don’t effectively deliver force, but break and fall apart as you try to use them. This is a big reason why I like to tell folks to do tai chi for a spell. It’ll improve the quality of their tools (techniques).

But again, ALL of those are tools. Tools critical to getting the job done, but not the same as doing the job. Or even knowing what’s involved in the job or how to do it.

Now that you have an idea about the bigger picture (tools, manuals, diagnostics, reading etc.) let’s take an another look at one-stop-shopping.

My problem with the ‘one stop shopping’ approach is people believe that they can buy quality tools, lean how to use them, learn to read, get the right manual and fix their car --ALL in the same place. Then they start adding things, like exercise, a social network, meditation, spirituality, character development and psychology and the BS gets really, really deep.

In closing I’d like to leave you with something that I’ll let you figure out the implications for yourself. That is the correlation between one-stop-shopping and high prices.

Take a look at the quality of merchandise you get from SuperWalmart, Super Target or whatever cheap one-stop-shopping store that’s local to you. You pay less knowing it’s cheap, but the convenience of not having to run around town balances it out. The martial arts, combatives, ultimate fighting market is the polar opposite. The more they claim to be able to ‘give’ you everything you need, the higher the prices.

But what about the quality?

For all the money these places are charging, I am seriously underwhelmned. Never mind all the other stuff they say you are ‘learning.’ Way too often I look at the quality of their ‘tools’ and think ‘You need six months of tai chi. Because your structure and timing sucks. You’re leaking force like a spaghetti strainer.’

But man, will the instructors – and more importantly the people who are paying for it -- tell you how awesome and effective that training is.

Apparently, the more people pay, the more they believe (or maybe that’s ‘have to believe’) they’ve found the ultimate kick ass style that gives them everything they need to prepare them for ‘real’ violence.

You might want to think about this if you’ll ever have to ‘fix your car.’

M

Spotting bias, slant, spin and agenda

Get a cup of coffee, this is gonna be a discussion of another long, complex subject. And I mean a real long one. (No lie, I mean it's REALLY long.)

I always enjoy pointing folks to a study done at Emory University. People -- who identified themselves as either liberals or conservatives -- were put into an MRI machine and asked political questions.

During the question part of the experiment, both 'groups' displayed the same patterns of biased, skewed and illogical thought. (Keep that last part in mind, we'll come back to it.) For example, if the opponent's candidate did something 'wrong,' the reaction was an immediate, "Lynch the SOB!" Conversely, when their own candidate did the same thing ... "Well, you know he had his reasons for that" and "I know what he did was wrong, but he's done so much good," etc., etc.

In other words, it was wrong, evil and horrible when the other side did it, But OK, understandable and forgivable when their side did the same thing. Along those same lines, the other side was chock full of idiots and malicious greedy bastards, who were out to destroy all that was good in the world. Whereas, their side was right, noble and pure of heart. Those same biases were inherent in both group's verbal answers.

There's another part of this study, though -- the mechanical one. I said earlier to keep 'illogical thought' in mind. That's because, as they were questioned, the MRI was aimed at their brains. The scans showed what parts of their brains were physically active while they were being asked and were answering the questions. The parts that were firing in both groups were once again the same.

Except for one little thing. The parts of their brains that were active controlled emotions, not logic. But -- and here is where the MRI came in handy -- everyone swore they were being rational and logical about their answers. Nope, sorry, wrong. There's the physical proof.

Those glowing hot spots on the MRI and the steadfast belief they were being logical are the foundations for the statement: The hardest bias to spot is your own.

It's easy to get cranky when someone is pissing on some cause or ideal you support. After all, it's something you believe is right, true and obvious. And that bastard is attacking your ideals. It's lots harder to spot when you're being manipulated along those same lines -- especially when that manipulation reconfirms your biases. The booger about this is the same techniques that infuriate you when they piss all over your beliefs seem perfectly logical and reasonable when they're pissing on other people's beliefs.

That's what we're going to talk about today, how to spot those techniques. This is especially important when you agree with the slant given to information. That's when it's hardest to see. But, before we go there, there are a few more foundational issues that need to be addressed.

Humans are by nature tribal. You can get all kinds of cultural anthropological, evolutionary psychological and historical about it. Or you can look at how, even among those of our own nation, we divide ourselves into smaller, more tribal political parties, religious denominations, socioeconomic levels, ethnic and even football team allegiances. Gone are the days of raiding and warfare against our neighbors. But we basically still play the same game as back when we charged over the hill while waving spears. We're just more intellectual and civilized about it. Because, after all, we're all part of the same nation and are educated and civilized. Spears? No. Verbal slings and arrows, oh yeah.

A lot of other stuff comes with these groupings. We use the ideals, standards, mythology and -- we can go so far as to say -- dogma of our subgroups to identify who we are. "I'm a (fill in the blank)," "We believe (fill in the blank)." That basically means we buy into an 'us vs. them' mindset. Then we tell ourselves why we are better, smarter, more (fill in the blank) than the other group. Those horrible, ignorant 'them.'

Tribalism is a huge subject by itself, but how it relates here is it corrupts what we accept as 'proof.' In fact, we tend to accept without question anything that:
a) supports our biases
b) condemns the 'other'

A lot of the time when you join a group, you have to accept that group's enemy as your own. The longer the feud, the more ingrained and dogmatic beliefs become -- especially as to why those other people are wrong. I'm talking -- short of calling them baby raping, crackheads -- any slur, rumor, allegation, insult or criticism of 'those' people is accepted at face value and assumed to be true. "Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence! Just for that we'll blog about your mother, too!" (With apologies to Bogey and "Sierra Madre.")

Before we get to how to spot slant, bias, spin doctoring, agenda pushing and plain old manipulation designed to get your limbic system all aflutter (so you shut down your higher brain functions and get all tribal monkey), let's look at the differences between the way we get our information as straight news, analysis, opinion/editorial and blogging. This differences are important. Past straight news, odds are good someone is intentionally trying to light up your tribal 'monkey' for their own profit, power and control.

Wow, doesn't that sound paranoid and Machiavellian? Well, guess what? Even if nothing is happening right at that moment, keeping your emotional monkey brain simmering stops you from slowing down and actually thinking for yourself. Or to be more specific, thinking along anything other than tribal lines. It's in the source's best interest to keep you emotional and excited ... especially if it means you keep coming back to him or her as a 'news' source or to vote for them. And don't forget the increase in their advertising rates (revenue) when it comes to increased ratings or circulation. Machiavellian? Nah. Try business. The media is not a philanthropic organization, not even the news.

A straight news story tells you who, what, when, where, why and how. That's pretty much it. An important sticking point is the 'why.' For the sake of clarity, we'll say that the best 'why' comes directly from individuals involved in the story. It's news when the guy in the story tells you 'why' he's doing something. When the writer of the piece starts telling you 'why,' it's floating away from straight news. How far that goes ... well, that remains to be seen.

One also can say that a legit story will give you multiple sides. My wife, who was a newspaper editor for more than 20 years, has a saying: "A good story pisses everyone off." That's because all sides are going to be angry that you gave equal time and space to everyone, instead of favoring just one angle. (Oh, did you notice how I slid in the idea that actual news isn't binary? If you're lucky there's only 16 different sides with their own opinions and complicating related issues about the subject. That's another wifely insight.) If you look at issues beyond a simplistic black and white, right or wrong perspective, things get complicated real quick.

Proportions are something you need to keep an eye on. News -- on anything more complicated than a house fire or simple crime -- reports the opposing viewpoints of an issue. Now sometimes they have to go to a total barking moonbat to find an opposing point of view, but they will report it. They do this to keep up the appearance of being balanced and reporting the 'opposing' points of view. You can see this because the bulk of the news story will be about the facts, reputable sources will make up most of the 'why' and one lone paragraph or section will contain the moonbat's comments.

This same practice, however, can be used to slant a news story. Giving equal time to opposing sides does not mean three paragraphs of quotes from one side and a one liner from the other. That's a subtle way to make the underrepresented side look like a barking moonbat.

Where things start getting complicated is with analysis pieces. An analysis looks like a news story; in fact, they show up most in self-proclaimed 'news magazines.' But simply stated, it ain't the news. It ain't a feature, and it's often only a hair away from an opinion/editorial piece.

An analysis is a booger because it is not straight news. It's the writer analyzing the information he or she is giving you. Information he (or she) has picked and chosen. An analysis piece relies heavily on experts telling you what something means and what is going to happen about a major issue. I'm a big fan of going back and reading old news magazines to see how badly they got things wrong. While the stories seem so crisp, clear and definite at the time of publication, humans often mistake conviction and certitude for being right. If this 'expert' says this is what it means and that is what is going to happen, who are we to question? Never mind that it turned out entirely differently than predicted. It was presented with utmost confidence. That's why reading old analysis pieces is such a hoot.

Ideally, an analysis piece will be a well researched, carefully investigated and balanced. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. In these days of immediate media, the need to get the story out is a higher priority than getting it right. (You can always run a retraction or correction later.)

This is where the 'it's not a Machiavellian plot, but business' comes into play. In recent years, the media has leaned more and more toward presenting news in a narrative style and using more and more analysis. Simply stated, news is more interesting and entertaining when presented this way. It's becoming info-tainment. The competition for your attention in our multimedia overload world makes the shift understandable. This especially applies to articles and news television shows trying to trigger your tribal monkey. It's a good way to attract viewers, readers and advertisers.

It's here that you'll find a lot of the stuff I'm going to be talking about creeping in -- but hiding under the guise of 'news.' Part of this tracks back to the need to get information out quickly. You can fill a lot of space and air time by stuffing these tricks into your 'featured news story of the hour' or article.

And this brings us to the next category. The opinion/editorial (op/ed) piece.

An opinion/editorial article is about persuasion. As in high school debate team persuasive speech (oratory ) competition. Wikipedia explains persuasive speech as "to change, reinforce or instill the attitudes, beliefs and values of the audience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_events_%28speech%29 ) Any reputable newspaper, television station or magazine will clearly identify such segments as commentary. And yes, there are entire shows predicated on the entertaining opinions of a particular pundit. They have higher ratings than straight news.

The slickest op/ed is the one that pretends to be news or an analysis about a subject. This, so you think you're getting accurate information and news -- instead of someone trying to persuade you of something. The fact is, when it is identified as an op/ed piece, that's perfectly OK. Basically, you know the writer is sharing his or her opinion and trying to get a reaction from you. It's done within the editorial and professional journalistic standards of the source.

The problem is the number of people who assume an op/ed article is actually a 'straight' news source. (It isn't.) But because of the shift to narrative news and analysis, it is easier to blur the lines and to sell such segments as "the news," when they are not 'straight,' 'just the facts, ma'am,' news stories.

We now come to blogging -- an Internet phenomenon that covers a wide spectrum of information and opinion. I've seen it done in a more professional and informed way than many media outlets. I've seen it so paranoid and ranting that the writer needs to be put into a padded room. Blogging can also be a housewife telling you about her baby's progress. A whole lot of blogging is basically op/ed without meeting the professional standards or conditions of journalism. There is no need to present any alternative points of view. And a lot of blogging is juicy and emotional to hook folks, who think a certain way, and get them all fired up and tribal. It is pure cherry picking of facts and often outright attacks on the hated 'them.'

Once again, people can mistake blogging for news because often they hear about a event or story from a blogger, comic or pundit. What's coming to them is filled with opinion, slant, bias edited facts and, often, outright attacks and condemnation. Here's a hint folks: Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Bill Maher are reliable news sources. Same goes for various articles in the Huffington Post or a Glenn Beck commentary.

Now, I'm of the opinion that the media brought their lack of credibility on themselves by blurring the lines between news, analysis and op/ed to fill space and air time, as well as sell more info-tainment than the more boring straight news. Actual investigative journalism? Takes too long. Find a pundit and stick him in front of the camera or quote him to fill time and space. This, of course, when the writer isn't filling it with the tricks, twists and spin methods that I'm going to talk about.

And BTW, if you think there is no credibility issue with the media, I have a simple test: Fox News or New York Times? Which one of those caused a "well, of course" reaction and which one caused a "those idiots" response? Credibility issue? Or does it go deeper than that and into the realm of your tribal monkey? A monkey that accepts your sources as credible, but not the sources of 'those people?' Pander to one tribe, and you lose credibility with others.

There's also something you should know about most news. It makes really boring television. Explosions, car crashes, fires, shoot outs, those are exciting. A city council meeting over a bond issue, not so much. So what the news media does best is report conflict. Basically via the electronic media (TV and cable) you get 10 seconds of straight news, then you get 20 seconds of opposing sides trying to tell you why they're right about the issue. The story is about the conflict.

Another time filler is the human interest aspect (how the people involved 'feel'), the history or follow up. If there' has been a big news event, the local media can keep it going for years. Here in Denver, the local news channels are still running 'related' stories about the Columbine High School shootings, even though they occurred in 1999. Naturally, they have to do a back story in case you forgot about it. (So they show video of the killers running around with guns.) Exciting time filler, that. How are the families coping all these years later? Not exactly news.

The reason all this is an issue is it has conditioned us to think that news comes with 'expert' opinions, human interest and related 'stories.' We don't even notice when we're being fed 'filler' material, instead of "just the facts" of straight news. Much less when it's one-quarter news and three-quarters opinion.

So now that I've probably bored you to tears with all this background information and explanations, let's look at a list of ways to spot bias -- especially our own.

Adverbs and adjectives -- These modifiers are somewhat like subliminal advertising. Back in the late '70s, I trained myself to start seeing subliminal manipulation in advertising. That was the stuff advertisers were putting in ads that didn't register on your consciousness, but -- hopefully -- subconsciously affected your behavior. There was a law about doing anything as overt as editing theatrical movies. That's where a film would be edited, inserting a single frame of an image of popcorn or a soft drink. This image would go by so fast, the viewer never consciously saw it. But in theory, the viewer would get a craving to go to the refreshment stand and buy stuff. Years of psychological research have pretty well proved that subliminal advertising is less than effective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli ) -- at least if you're not already predisposed.

But back then, the advertising companies were pouring a lot of money into the idea. Because of that law, though, they couldn't be obvious about it. So tricks like airbrushing vague and not-so vague images into the larger images in print ads became common. When I was researching the subject, I would look at an ad, and something in my subconscious would twitch. That was the signal to start looking for the hidden images. My personal fave was the booze ad that had what looked to be a guy in a suit looking up at a noose in the ice cubes. Coincidence? Not likely. Overt enough to get challenged in court? Nope. Not that, either.

I tell you this because there's something really similar going on with slanting a news article. The best way to manipulate people is through the use of strong adverbs and adjectives. If you believe in what the author is 'selling,' you won't even notice them. They will slide under your radar. If you disagree, they're going to piss you off. But odds are, you won't know why. That's because it's a kind of subliminal, even though it's right there in plain sight.

For example, 'Police shoot suspect' vs. 'Police brutally shoot suspect.' One word and it colors everything. Even if the rest of the article is straight news, the biases have been activated, and they will color your perception of the story. Some of these word choices can be ham handed (like 'brutally'), others can be subtle. If you already think the cops are oppressors, enforcers of the power elite or just ignorant knuckle draggers on power trips, then 'brutally' is going to reconfirm your bias. To the point that you think 'brutally' is part of the news. If you're a cop (or related to one), the insult has been given and the conclusion made that it's not going to be a fair and accurate reporting of the event. We are emotionally swayed by one adverb.

That's an obvious example, but a lot of times use of adjectives and adverbs is more subtle. So subtle, in fact, this manipulation can be seen where something is mentioned and not mentioned. Like the Newsweek article I read that insisted on identifying every Republican senator as Republican each time that person was mentioned. Conversely, the political affiliation of Democratic senators was only mentioned in passing -- if at all. The article read like this: Senator John Smith and Senator John Doe (R) are in disagreement over this issue.

This may not sound like much, but think of it in terms of tribalism. That (R) is a scarlet letter. It's not a senator, it's one of THOSE people. The only real senators are the ones of your party. The (R) basically means every Democratic reader presupposes that Senator John Doe is wrong for disagreeing with their good guy, John Smith.

Train yourself to be sensitive to adverbs and adjectives. This, whether you agree with them or not. The ones you agree with are the hardest to spot. Yet they also are the most important ones for you to start recognizing. Unless, of course, your definition of being intelligent and informed is "I allow myself to be emotionally manipulated and drink the Kool-Aid."

Hot button words and phrases -- Let's just start with two big ones here in the U.S. -- liberal and conservative. You just mention either of these terms and the brains of a lot of folks -- if they're in an MRI machine -- will light up like a pinball machines. Thing is, you don't need an MRI to see that glazed-over, emotional, dogmatic expression creep over someone's face when those parts of the brain kick in.

There are a lot more hot buttons than just those two. Thing about hot button words or phrases is they have a lot of attached baggage, history and cant. No, I didn't leave out an apostrophe. Cant can be used as a noun or a verb, but both refer to "hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious or political nature." Using hot button words kicks people into their monkey brains. That's where not only cant seems reasonable, but you get all kinds of presuppositions and dogma attached.

Racism, sexism, education, discrimination, sexual harassment, feminism, domestic violence, abortion, global warming, climate change, creationism vs. evolution, peaceful protest and oppression -- all are hot button words and phrases. You can think of these as the new cry to holy war. These, in fact, have become new 'religions' for many folks. People react to these terms with a fever that eclipses their reaction to religion in our modern, Western world.

But even if someone isn't a true believer, he or she will react emotionally to these hot button terms. Usually because they've been burned by them. Negative experience comes in three basic forms. One is being attacked by someone using this rhetoric (e.g., getting torn into by a social harpy for daring to question the dogma of these new religions). Two is having been accused and hauled before the inquisitors. Three, they're the inquisitors swinging into action to protect the company from possible legal action from such an allegation.

Yeah, funny how we're too smart to act this way about religion anymore. But we will react over these new causes. Pretty much anytime these phrases are used, people's rational minds shut down and their brains go into the emotional patterns the MRI reveals. Knowing this, learn to spot hot button terms and pay close attention to how fast they show up (like in the headline or lead [first] paragraph of an article).

Name calling -- Closely related to adjectives, but it is a far more direct and open attack. You may say to yourself -- if you're edjamukated -- "Ah an ad hominen." While name calling is often used as a logical fallacy, an ad hominem is 'His points are invalid because he's a douchebag.' Name calling is just calling him a douchebag.

A lot of attacks go hand in glove with hot button terms. For example, calling a particular politician a racist or a socialist. These are vague, unsubstantiated accusations, not facts. Yet our tribal monkey will grab onto them as proof of why we shouldn't like this person (we'll come back to this point later).

Still other terms are just flat out insults, accusations, condemnations or judgments. Take, for example, calling someone 'ignorant.' Here's a good one from the icon of the warm and fuzzy, Mahatma Ghandi: "Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you."

By implication, anyone who disagrees with your 'version of truth' (we'll get to that in a second) is ignorant. It also isn't just a disagreement with what you are saying, it's a personal condemnation of you for being you, as well. That's what those evil bastards are about. They are out to get you, to punish you. Aside from the paranoia and self-righteousness, look at what else is happening. Without having to bother with actually proving that your idea works, you're right, they're wrong. Those ignorant meanies. They deserve what they get. (Quick, can you spot the tribal monkey? Name calling is a big step in the process.)

"Well, it isn't an attack if it's the truth" is the most common form of self-justification for this behavior. No, it's an attack, plain and simple. If you have to figure out a justification as to why it isn't -- like telling yourself that it's 'the truth' without proof -- you're in your emotional monkey brain. You are doing exactly what the Emory study demonstrated.

That brings us to the next two forms of bias.

Moralistic and 'right or wrong' judgment -- If you judge things from the standard of right or wrong, most of what you are doing is subjective interpretation. Not just based on cultural paradigms, but your own beliefs, biases and ingrained assumptions.

A lot of people do this as a kind of mental shorthand to get through life. In many ways, it follows the old saying, "A conclusion is where most people get tired of thinking." Here's the booger about that, a moral judgment allows you not to think about the complexities of the subject anymore. Or if you do, it's just to reconfirm your bias. This, whether your judgment is good or bad. It's black and white. You've made a judgment, you're right, they're wrong. That's that.

Take, for example, gay marriage. If you judge it to be wrong, you get to shut down your brain and take a vacation from actually looking at the complexities of the issues that arise from real life, e.g., legal status, insurance, heath care decisions, inheritance and all the other matters that are addressed by two-person unions in our society. If you judge it to be right, you get to feel morally superior, smarter, and more compassionate and understanding than those ignorant wretches who oppose it on religious grounds. (Yep, I just demonstrated name calling. But, more than that, did you noticed that being judgmental and righteous is a two-way street?)

Now this version of spin is seldom overtly stated as "we're right, they're wrong." But it serves as an underlying foundation of a lot of editorials and blogs. It even serves as the foundation of the Ghandi quote. Use of hot button (and judgmental) terms such as 'truth' and 'correct' flat out ignore the fact they are more subjective than we'd like to believe.

How subjective? For example, in the West, the way many Muslim cultures treat women is considered wrong and oppressive. Yet, when approached with the idea of change, many Muslim women resist because they think their cultural values are true and correct.

Pay close attention to our inclination to be judgmental rather than rational. It opens the door for all kinds of manipulation by people who know how to exploit this tendency. Make no mistake, there are folks whose profession it is to manipulate your tribal monkey along these lines.

Idealistic appeal to compassion or superior values -- This has become the new form of moral superiority. Believing you're morally superior because you worship the right god (or the correct version) is soooooo old school. Now, if you don't support the right social cause, attempt to save the world or hold certain ideals, you're wrong, ignorant or part of the problem. In other words, the person who does ascribe to them is better than you. Don'tcha know?

Man, I am so going to lose sleep over the fact I'm not socially conscious enough.

The thing is, we, as humans, are designed to care for and cooperate with those inside our tribe. Outside our tribe, not so much. This creates some stress within our modern lifestyle.

On one hand, our modern world is based on getting past this small tribal attitude, getting together and working with others to form a bigger tribe. (Hint: The concept of 'nationalism' didn't come about until the French Revolution.)

On the other hand, many people have trouble with how far some folks are willing to take the idea that we're all one big happy family that needs to care for each other. Just how big is this uber-tribe supposed to be? Where do we draw the line? For example, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)and old school ecologists would have you believe animals and trees are in your tribe, too. That's what using the term 'murdering' implies. They'll tell you we're murdering animals and trees. That is their 'truth.' (Beginning to see why truth can be so subjective?)

The human tendency to show compassion can be exploited. It's bias if there's an underlying assumption that you have to support an idea because it's for the 'good of the children,' will help society or the cause opposes something that is wrong (e.g., racism, inequality of wealth, etc.) If you don't support these noble ideals, you're an insensitive, unenlightened prick -- who's probably part of the problem. See how fast name calling and tribalism show up?

You also can get a target painted on your chest if you suggest that maybe -- just maybe -- there should be a few practical checks and balances put onto the 'solutions' these folks are suggesting. How could you be so cold-hearted not to approve unlimited funding for this 'crisis?' Or from the flip side, not willing to give unchecked power and money to protect our 'way of life.'

You should know this is a real common tactic when it comes to shutting down discussion on the practical considerations of where such noble attitudes will lead. For example, 'education is for the good of the children.' How good, how noble, how virtuous. How dare you ask about financial oversight, disclosure and accountability as to how the money is going to be used by the school system. If you want to get caught in the dragon's flame suggest that someone is making a career out of educational crisis.

As you can guess, appealing to noble and virtuous ideals is a core element in editorials and blogs. As is condemning those who don't support the source's particular version of what constitutes 'compassion' or patriotic and virtuous ideals.

Creative editing of quotes or video -- "The pen is mightier than the sword." Heard it. Know it. Right?

Ever heard the full quote? "Under men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword." Not even a period, but a comma divides the qualifier from the rest of the quote. Folks must presuppose they're 'entirely great' to drop that important qualifier. Personally, I'm under no such delusion. I'd really rather go into a fight with a sword instead of a pen, but that's just me.

In the media, you can really make someone seem like a horrible, evil wretch by taking a quote out of context or only quoting part of what he or she said. That's also the problem with sound bites, you don't always get the bigger picture.

For example, if I take a sound bite and throw in a lot of adjectives, adverbs, hot button words and appeal to your superior social consciousness, I can make anybody sound like a racist. This is important because if that person is from another tribe (or political party), you'll immediately believe it -- especially if your tribe has negative beliefs about the others. You may not even know the person, but, because he or she is from the other tribe, you'll buy the racist allegation hook, line and sinker.

I mentioned painting a public figure as racist because of a comment he or she made. Two points about that.

First, realistically, if you look at these *cough, cough* news stories, what you will find is the specific comment made by the candidate, and the rest of the story will be quotes from people saying he or she is racist. That, and the outrage and furor such people are causing. Ninety-nine percent of the story isn't about what the person said, it's about the outrage. You might find a story that is 98 percent because it includes the public figure clarifying or apologizing. But I wouldn't hold my breath if the source is hunting that person's scalp.

Second is my response to my conservative friends who tell me Obama is a socialist. "I don't personally know the man, so I don't know that for sure." It's true. I don't know the guy. I've never had a chance to sit down, have a cup of coffee and talk about what either of us believe. As such, everything I hear about him being a socialist is hearsay. Usually by people who don't like the guy. (Oh yeah, this works both ways. It's easy for his supporters to call his detractors racist. Although all the detractors I've personally dealt with are way more up tight about his being a Democrat than his race.) Stop and think about this behavior from folks who are posting blog pieces about candidates being racists or closet communists. And hearsay and blogs being accepted as truth by tribal monkeys.

Half quotes and a lot of opining by people who weren't actually there (or know the person) are real common ways to present bias as 'news.'

In these days of cameras in phones and Youtube, you're also going to see a video version of edited information. What you will see is only the most exciting parts. That is to say, the parts that will get you emotional, excited and direct your thinking down a certain path (especially if the commentary is filled with adjectives, adverbs and outrage).

I'll go back to the old days and talk about the Rodney King beating. The 'beating video' lasts about a minute-and-a-half. All you see is one dude getting a beat down from the cops. It is infuriating. The full video ... well, that's kind of interesting. Modern sources talk about it being nine or 12 minutes But I -- who was living in LA during the incident, the trial, the riots and the federal trials -- seem to remember it as 18 minutes.

I often say about the first trial that the jury saw the whole tape (which they did). By the end of it, they were saying, "Give me the club, I'm going to beat him myself!" (This is hyperbole, but they didn't convict the officers.)

Not too many people have actually seen the full tape. Nor do they understand use of force policies. As fucked up as that situation was, there is a reason the officers were acquitted. At the time, that was use of force policy for the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department (incidentally, it's one of the many reasons why I don't like PPCT). Tasers had failed. A chokehold could have ended it much earlier, but those had been prohibited by the LAPD since Ron Sutter. Shooting him wasn't justified. Did you notice I just gave you more factual information about why the officers were acquitted than you've probably ever heard before? And since I'm clarifying things, the federal charges were not about excessive force and assault, but civil rights. So technically it wasn't double jeopardy. (Although we can argue about it being politically motivated and placating people who demanded punishment for the 'wrong' -- there's that idea again -- the officers did.)

The full clip, information about use of force policies and suddenly the acquittal makes more sense. That short video mixed with the officer acquittal, however, resulted in Los Angeles burning. The rioters had made their minds up based on edited information.

Whenever you see a video clip, the first thing you want to do is look for adjectives and hot button terms in the title or the explanation. What is this person trying to sell you as the 'truth' that the clip supposedly proves? While you're at it, the first time you watch it, do it with the sound off. This, especially with cell phone camera footage. Often the commentary of the filmer is emotional and slanted.

Then ask yourself, what parts of the video are not being shown? If you really want to be daring, try finding the longest recording you can of the incident. You'd be amazed at how often the full video undermines the 'poor, sweet, innocent victim' image you get from the short clip.

This brings us to the next grouping on our list of spinning the facts, slants and agendas.

Exclusion, editing of salient points and pertinent facts -- This isn't just 'my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts.' I'm talking about legitimate and arguably intentional exclusion by the source of information pertinent to the issue.

Let's talk about health care. Let's talk about the 'value of human life' in nuts-and-bolts terms. How much money should we spend to save a specific life? When it's someone you love, the sky's the limit. It also can be when you're the one with the fatal disease. Then, no amount of money is too much. The same goes if you're an uber-tribalist (we're all one 'family'). But when you're talking about unlimited spending for hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens that can get a little pricey. That is something that doesn't come up in the 'for' arguments, but it certainly comes up in the arguments 'against.' When it does or someone attempts to limit expenditures, he or she is accused of trying to kill people in the name of greed.

If a source is for (or against) something, information that would weaken that position will be left out of what he or she is telling you. You can pretty much take that to the bank. This is a very good reason to read sources that are diametrically opposed to your normal perspective. If you're a liberal, try watching Fox. If you're a conservative, try reading the New York Times. If you can get past the name calling and adjectives each uses against your cherished ideals, you'll find a lot of information on the issue that your regular sources aren't reporting.

Guilt by association -- This is particularly common in politics. First recognize an important point: Just because you disagree with the standards of a group doesn't mean the right of its members to vote should be stripped away. Nor does it mean that politicians have no business listening or talking to them. They too are U.S. citizens. A political office holder is duty bound to represent and work for the needs of everyone, not just those who voted for him.

Second, when you hear the condemnation, accusations and disgust expressed by pundits, bloggers and opinion piece writers over a politician talking to or being supported by an organization, you're seeing guilt by association. Usually association with a group that is synonymous with a hot button term. This is the justification to dismiss, condemn and despise the candidate who dares to oppose your good, just and noble candidate. I remember the sense of outrage that certain circles felt because the mayor met with gang representatives over a police shooting. Oddly enough, the same folks who strongly support the idea of a mayor talking to gang members are in turn outraged and disgusted when the American Nazis and the Klu Klux Kan support a candidate. And oh mah gawd, what if he belongs to a religion I don't approve of?

Glittering generalities -- This is both a big warning signal and a common tactic. The term 'glittering generality' is one my wife coined. We all know what a generality is, but a glittering one is that which sounds good, but has no real substance.

Glittering generalities work because everyone thinks they know what they mean. This functions on what I like to call 'framework thinking.' That means someone is saying something that is actually very vague, but you to fill in the details about what you think he means.

A good example is 'it's for the children.' Another one is 'Christian values.' (Sorry, folks, but there are more than 3,000 different sects of Christianity with many different values, ethics, ways of worship and beliefs.) But you use these terms and people just eat them up. To each of these terms, we ascribe our own values, significance and meaning. So the guy who is using such terms is framing the house, but you add the plumbing, electric, drywall, etc., etc., all the while thinking he's the one who built it.

Once again, the hardest bias to spot is your own. This, especially when it comes to the details you fill in on someone else's glittering generality. Be a pest, ask the person to actually define what he means by his statements. This, instead of his expecting you to do all the work of figuring out what he means.

Criticism instead of complaint -- A complaint is a legitimate communication about a specific injury or wrong. It is communication about something that can be remedied. A criticism is a generalized condemnation and a personal attack. It's not seeking to fix a particular problem, it's about blaming the other person for ... well ... everything. It's not about what a person did, it's about him or her in an overall sense of being wrong. While it may be initiated on a particular subject or quote, it quickly leaves that and becomes both condemning and generalized, e.g., you always do (fill in the blank). There is nothing the person can do about it. The condemnation is now and forever.

Some criticisms become so entrenched and dogmatic that a hot button term is all it takes. If the person is a known liberal or conservative, pointing that out isn't news. Calling him that is being used as a condemnation and criticism -- at least to people from the other tribes.

Think I'm making this up? 'Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh.' Does anyone over 5 years old not know who he is? Why does he need to be identified and labeled? If you buy into the liberal camp, one hot button word and noun (icon) not only condemns everything he has to say, but also the retards who listen to him. (The irony of that is how much he uses the same techniques to trigger folk's monkey brain reactions about 'liberals.') I don't have to criticize someone for being a narrow-minded, bigoted, greedy bastard -- all I have to do is sneer when I say, "He's a conservative."

Another subtle version of criticism is the source ascribing results or motives. Usually these are subtly negative and tacked on at the end of facts. For example: The (fill in the blank) in the House are attempting to pass (insert bill number), which will cost American taxpayers millions. That is a fact followed by a criticism disguised as a fact. Realistically anything congress does is going to cost a few million dollars, so why this caveat except to criticize? Same thing goes for '(fill in the blank) are attempting to control the House.' Obviously it's wrong when the other side tries to do it, but right that your side is doing the same thing.

Hyperbole and grandiosity -- I recently read an article in a Canadian newspaper about a trial in Ontario involving a Afghan family members committing multiple honor killings. The article started with a bit of hyperbole. Speaking about the trial not just as a battle between Western jurisprudence and Sharia law, the so-called 'news source' declared the jury "held the moral fabric of Canada in their hands." When I mentioned the adjectives and adverbs, the person who sent me the link admitted that the Edmonton Sun was famous for that kind of hyperbole.

The situation was screwed up in all kinds of ways. First, there was polygamy involved (one of the deceased was the father's first wife). Second, four people were killed. Third, the 'wife' who was killed was in the country illegally. Fourth, all of her daughters also were killed by the father's other family. (Kinda financially convenient, eh?) I'm not entirely sure how Canadian law works, but I'm pretty sure even with a conviction, there is the right of appeal to higher courts. As such, the fate of the nation isn't a decision made by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. It was, however, a pretty solid murder conviction. But c'mon, one decision that saved an entire country? Much less that the verdict was -- and I quote -- an 'heroic' stand against 'the cold-blooded and twisted customs of foreign lands.' That's a little over the top, don'tcha think?

Hyperbole and grandiosity are closely related to another point that's coming. But this particular story has something that is pretty unique unto itself. If you live in Edmonton or even Alberta, you know the Sun is pretty 'tabloidish.' Except this 'news' story was sent to me, not only over the Internet, but posted on my Facebook page as 'news.' In short, I had no way of knowing if the Sun was a legitimate news source, a supermarket rag or an e-zine. The use of adverbs, adjectives and hyperbole tipped me off that the story wasn't straight news. And surprise, surprise, even the Edmonton Sun filed it under op/ed. Still I had to research the tabloid nature of the paper. How many 'news' items you receive over the Internet do you actually check to see if they are news, a feature, op/ed or blogs? Or do you just assume it's actual news?

Freight train thinking -- There is an old story about a famous 'rocket scientist,' who went to speak at one of the big technology schools. (I've heard both MIT and Cal Tech cited.) After his lecture, there came the usual question-and-answer period. Those of you old enough to have lived through this will understand the following: A gender feminist stood up and 'asked,' given the male fixation with their penises, isn't it obvious that rockets are built in the shape of men's biggest obsession? The lecturer responded, "We tried to make rockets in the shape of vaginas, but they weren't aerodynamically sound."

Some say that story is apocryphal, others say it actually happened to (insert scientist's name here). Still others say it is an outright lie to make feminism look bad. (Three guesses who says this.) That's not the point, the point is this story represents a good example of what I like to call 'freight train thinking.'

That is where someone tries to attach hot button topics to everything. This can be a Johnny One Note or it can be someone who tries to attach everything -- including the kitchen sink -- to a subject. Let's stick with the Johnny One Note because he's easier to explain. With such folks, the entire universe is filtered through one perspective. It's not that it always comes back to the topic. It's that this particular person is incapable of ever leaving the subject. As Winston Churchill once said a "fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

The seeming credibility of the vagina-shaped rocket story comes from not just our tendency to want to think badly of those from another tribe, but also bad personal experiences with Johnny One Notes of the RadFem persuasion. (Or maybe I should say Jenny One Notes).

Odds are good you've met someone who does freight train thinking. Someone who always manages to bring it back to the same old thing by attaching it to every subject. What you may not realize is how much freight train thinking plays in the business of blogs, media commentators and show hosts. You see it all the time, but, unless you're aware of it, you won't even notice it. And this is kind of scary because it's become a staple in so-called 'news.'

In what turned out to be rather predictive about the direction the electronic media was heading, James Fallows in his 1997 book, Breaking The News, talks about the requirements of constantly staying in front of the public eye. Although he doesn't refer to it as such, the person in front of the camera (or the blogger) needs to develop a 'shtick.' For those of you who don't speak Yiddish, a shtick is a theme or gimmick that specifically identifies a comic (e.g., Ron White with his cigar and bourbon or Gabriel Iglesias's voices).

In essence, nobody can be an expert on everything. Furthermore, you can't really research a subject thoroughly in one day, much less actually investigate it. There are certain topics that take years of study before you can talk intelligently about the complexities and variables. Yet this person needs to appear informed by airtime.

At the same time, we have become used to 24-hour-a-day news and accustomed to googling news stories we hear about. In short, if we want to know about something -- even if it's breaking news -- we expect to have the information immediately. That source better be on it or we'll go elsewhere.

These two factors play heavily into both the shtick media personalities must develop and freight train thinking. Constantly remaining in the public view while maintaining the 'credibility' of being informed and intelligent is no easy task. This is especially true when you are expected to opine intelligently on whatever issue is involved in the current breaking news.

One way to do this -- and why the term shtick is appropriate -- is through comedy. No matter what is occurring, a few witty remarks about it, and people will think you're informed, intelligent and up-to-date with current events. Bill Maher, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brian and Johnny Carson are examples of this.

Another way of doing this is to always have a shtick to come back to no matter what the subject. A shtick that is pretty much freight train thinking because it attaches itself to the subject and takes it a particular direction. For example, no matter what the issue, the question of "how will the White House respond to this crisis?" will fill air time and make the commentator look intelligent and concerned. That's the media celebrity's shtick.

The freight train thinking is that it's the White House's problem in the first place. Then comes the whole Democrat/Republican tribal thing and whether you hate or love the current administration. That's the beauty of freight train thinking when it's done subtly, you're the one who attaches all the extra 'cars' onto the train. What you don't notice is how, with this commentator, it always comes back to the same old hot button issue or ideal.

Freight train thinking also can come in the form of attaching all kinds of other hot button issues and ideas to confuse the issue. Train yourself to be aware of both when you're doing it and when it's being done to you.

Logical fallacies -- At last, the final item on the list. Except there is a thundering herd of different logical fallacies.

It is a subject that is well worth acquainting yourself with because you'll see these a lot in the media, on the Internet and in the words of someone trying to persuade you. I'm particularly fond of referring people to the Nizkor Project ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ ) for an simplified explanation of an often complex subject. In fact, once you've acquainted yourself with them take a look at this article again and see if you can spot how they relate to spinning facts and information (e.g., name calling is a Siamese twin to an ad hominen).

Let's just deal with three of the most common to give you a taste: Strawman -- Here's a hint, never 'learn' what someone's position is from that person's opponent. In other words, do not think you are going to get an accurate interpretation of the Democratic or Republican platform from the Republicans or Democrats. What you will be receiving is a distorted, twisted and edited version so that side can knock the bejeebers out of it. The stomping of the distorted version is known as a strawman argument. (Socrates was good at this.) It's the intellectual equivalent of kicking a cripple, after you've crippled him.

Slippery slope -- I also like to call this 'rock slide' thinking. This tiny little pebble -- if thrown down the mountain side -- will cause a rock slide of biblical proportions, crushing the tiny hamlet of Western civilization. Sound like hyperbole? That's what slippery slope thinking is. If we allow this one tiny issue to occur, the world as we know it will end. Really. Truly. It will happen if we allow this behavior or we don't stop this bill from passing.

Take, for example, all the gunfights that will constantly happen in the streets with the passage of legislation that makes it easier to get concealed carry permits. Not seen any lately? Too bad. Because that was the slippery slope argument that was used against concealed carry. If people were allowed to carry handguns, our streets would turn into the Wild West.

Appeal to fear -- A lot could be said about how our society has been conditioned to be afraid. Fear is an emotion. Emotional people are easy to manipulate. If I trigger your fears, you'll pretty much agree to anything, including my sending you at someone else like a wind-up pit bull (or agreeing to someone else doing it).

Now that's rather ham handed. But there are lots of other, far more subtle fears to which I can appeal. For example, if I start telling you about all the deaths and brain injuries of children riding bicycles, I really don't have to sell you on buying a child's helmet from me. You'll sell yourself.

Those are only three, there are lots more logical fallacies you'll learn to recognize.

I know this has been a long article, but, like pretty much anything involving human beings, it's a complicated subject. A subject that many of us just want to be simple. We're the good guys. They're the bad guys. We're right, they're wrong. How much more complicated can it be?

The answer is lots.

Our desire to simplify life and revert to tribal 'rules' and beliefs makes it easy for us to be manipulated. Make no mistake, media, advertising and politics are professionals at manipulating you. It's their job, so to speak. And the most effective type of manipulation not only works with how our brains are designed to function, but also plays with getting you to think you are thinking.

Take this information and start looking for the biases, slants, manipulation and out right spin doctoring of anything being sent your way. You'll start seeing it everywhere, even in things you believe in. That's an important step in actually communicating with and compromising with people who believe differently than you.

This, instead of acting like a bunch of pissed off tribal monkeys screaming and throwing shit at each other from different trees.

M

Why I despise "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by six ...

When someone mouths this cliché, I have a hard time keeping my cool. Because most people's understanding of the concept means the next 12 people they come across will be the 12 dudes raping them in the prison showers.

Now, I really don't care about the person who's saying it getting gang raped. As far as I'm concerned, he called it down on himself. I do have a problem with the prison showers happening to the innocent person who:
a) didn't know any better
b) listened to the bozo.

The 12/6 dictum is primarily the brain child of Col. Jeff Cooper, founder of Gunsite. The colonel's military background strongly influenced his concepts of shooting -- including when to shoot and when to stop. A particularly hotly debated issue is the wisdom of training military style shooting in a civilian context. Basically, the rules of engagement (ROE) are different.

It was often felt the colonel's perspective ignored the legal consequences in a civilian context -- in the name of ending a potential threat. The 12/6 'response' lends credence to this contention.

The 12/6 is a pity counter that is often used to dismiss a critical 'reality' about the consequences of violence. It's also the difference between self-defense and prison time. I don't know if the colonel used it as such, but I certainly will attest that is how a lot of folks use it today.

I can give you a really good example of the differences between civilian and military tactics and how they viewed in different contexts. Good because it is often taught in civilian shooting and concealed carry classes. *And* it is court tested.

Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night. Your children are screaming, and he bursts into your room waving a shotgun. You shoot him. He falls down and drops the shotgun. As you pass him to go check on your children -- having kicked the dropped shotgun away from him -- he growls, "I'm going to kill you." You put two more rounds into him and go see if your children are safe.

This is important -- that double tap IS following infantry protocol of passing a downed combatant. You take the fight out of him by killing him right there. That is what soldiers are taught to do and really ingrain on the battlefield. They do it without thinking as a survival protocol in combat.

Except in a civilian context, you've just committed manslaughter. And if the DA is really gung ho, he's going to try for murder charges. That's because the immediate danger had passed when you shot him as he was lying on the floor. Yes, he threatened you, but he was not an immediate danger to you anymore. (People get the term 'threat' confused because it generally means danger in a legal context, but something else in popular language.) He cannot act upon his threat to kill you. So you are not legally justified in shooting an unarmed man lying incapacitated on the ground for what he says.

Google Jerome Ersland. The Oklahoma pharmacist was convicted of Murder 1 because he came back and shot a downed robber. Now, realistically, Ersland's shooting did not conform to the military rules of engagement, either. To see it as such, you'd have to turn your head and squint.

Infantry rules of engagement are if the guy is in front of you, he's a hostile combatant. As such, you tap him as you pass. Once you've passed him, however, he is now a prisoner requiring medical assistance.

Once Ersland passed the dude, he was no long a combatant -- even by military standards. Yes, returning put him back in front of Ersland. That is -- arguably -- where the military training kicked in, mixed with adrenaline and combat trauma. There will be some debate if shooting the downed guy would have been overlooked on the battlefield. What we can say for certain is it wasn't overlooked in the pharmacy -- especially because it was caught on video. Now you can argue "well, what if the guy went for the gun again" all you want. But the raw fact is he *didn't*. You can only act in 'self-defense' in response to what is happening. *Not* what might happen. If there is no immediate 'threat', it's not self-defense.

This even applies in British common law where -- if you sincerely believe an attack is imminent -- you can act pre-emptively. But even this has limits. If the guy is in your face and snarls he's going to kick your ass, then yes. You can reasonably argue your pre-emptive strike was self-defense. If, however, the guy is standing -- not advancing, standing -- four feet away and does the same thing, your closing the distance to slug him isn't going to play well. (Under adrenal stress and spatial distortion, you had damned well better believe you're likely to step up, try to hit him, and not realize you did.)

Someone once said, "War is a thinking man's game." So too is self-defense. Unfortunately the way "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" is often used, it is an emotional and dangerous cliché. Used that way, it is not a thought out and rational conclusion.

Everything I've stated thus far is based on pretty much confirmable facts. (Ask a lawyer or read some law books.) Now my opinion, based on some more facts. I'll qualify them. F = fact; O = my opinion.

Violence is often the result of out-of-control emotions (F). Society has become less tolerant of violence (O). Many people, who engage in participatory violence, claim what they were doing was 'self-defense' (F). Many actually believe it. (O). This tendency to claim and believe an attack was 'self-defense' has 'peed in the pool' when it comes to cops and prosecutors believing such a claim (O). Self-defense is an affirmative defense (F). You are confessing to an action that is normally a crime (F). This "I did it" does half of the DA's job -- specifically proving that you were the one who did it (F). When you plead self-defense the 'production of proof' shifts to you. (F). You must produce enough proof (articulation of actions, their significance, the reason why it was dangerous) to explain why your actions were -- in fact -- self-defense (F). This, instead of it was you giving into your emotions and committing illegal violence on another person (F). Your 'fear' is not enough, you must provide facts that demonstrate your fear was justified and reasonable given the circumstances (F).

The 12/6 motto is often used by people to skip all this legal mumbo jumbo and sophist crap and get to the most important of all things -- my feelings (O). If I'm scared, I'm going to act on my feelings and let the court sort it out (O). This, because I told myself I was about to die and that scared me so I killed him in 'self-defense' (O). Stop and think about that for a second. Because there is one hellaciously big abyss that we've stepped over without even blinking. Why is it bad when someone else kills because of their emotional and subjective state, but it's all right, A-OK, okey dokey when we do it? (O).

It has been my experience that most people who use the colonel's, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" maxim are not only doing exactly that, but justifying that position -- and their ignorance of use of force law -- with that cliché.(O)

Oh BTW, although this is about shooting, you might also want to sit down and consider how it also applies to using 'military combatives' and 'reality based self-defense' training (F).

M