Yesterday an instructor who's on my dojo list posted links to an article by a Canadian (Victoria, B.C.) police sergeant named Darren Laur, and to some video clips on his site.

The article: http://www.realfighting.com/0702/laurart.html

The clips: http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/multimedia.htm

Both are well worth your while to check out.

Anyhow, I was moved to comment on the article from the perspective of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu training, and I thought I'd share that here as well in case anyone might find it interesting to ponder and discuss further:

Darren Laur is a great guy, and I like him a lot. One weekend when I was up in Canada doing a seminar for Robert Pfuetzenreuter’s dojo in Victoria, B.C., Robert brought Darren in Saturday evening to present a session on pre-attack indicators (and an understanding of them as legal justification for use of preemptive force). Lots of video clips to illustrate his points, really superb class.

This article is excellent, but I do have a nit to pick with one little bit:

For any skill taught, there must always be a plan "B" abort strategy conditioned as well. We must not be teaching multiple defenses (responses) to a specific type of attack (stimulus). The reason for this, HICKS LAW!

Hicks Law basically states the following: the average reaction time given one stimulus one response is about ½ second. If we now teach a student a second technique (response) to the same attack (stimulus) we WILL increase a person's reaction time by 58%. On the street we want to DECREASE reaction time, not increase it. If we teach multiple defenses to one specific attack, the brain will take time deciding which option to use. This increased reaction time could mean the difference between life and death.

If this were so, then sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not be possible. Certainly, the spontaneous flow in this little video clip (http://www.bujinkansf.org/seago.mpg) would not be possible.

Combatives instructor Hock Hochheim addresses this issue pretty ably in this article: http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm. He goes into much more specific detail, but this gets his point across pretty well:

It was about 25 years ago when I attended a police defensive tactics course and was rather insulted by the attitude of the instructor. We were treated like Neanderthals. He declared, ‘Hick’s Law says that it takes your mind too long to choose between two tactics. Worse with three! Therefore, I will show you one response.’

. . .Later that evening while coaching my son’s little league baseball team, I saw this very instructor coaching his team on another ball field. He was teaching ten year-olds to multi-task and make split-second decisions as his infielders, working double plays with runners on base. It was clear the coach expected more from these kids than he did from we adult cops that morning. Hick’s Law was not to be found on that kid's diamond.

Darren also, along with most if not all “modern combatives” instructors, believes:

Training for combat must be gross motor based, why? Because we know that during combat, SSR will negatively effect fine/complex motor skill performance no matter how well trained an individual.

On the surface, this would *seem* to imply that much of what we train to do, and what Hatsumi sensei does (and no, I’m not saying they are the same!), would never work in actual combat; yet I don’t really have a problem with his statement.

There are two parts to it. Let’s take this first: “Training for combat must be gross motor based. . .” Well, guess what? Ours IS gross motor based. At the most fundamental level, we use the whole body as a unit – most importantly the legs, but the abdominal and back muscles as well. Large-muscle groups. So we’re in good shape as far as that part goes.

Now, the second part: “. . .during combat, SSR will negatively effect fine/complex motor skill performance no matter how well trained an individual.“

I can accept that; Survival Stress Reaction *will* do that. Personally, I feel that what Darren describes as stimulus/response training is really asking for problems and is likely to *create* SSR. And unfortunately, many people hold the mistaken belief that that is how we train – even many of those who are training! Here's his description:

Person throws a right hooking punch which is seen and detected by the visual system

Visual system downloads this stimulus to the thalamus that sorts it and send it to the visual cortex of the brain

Visual cortex using the OODA loop, observes the stimulus, organizes it (right hooking punch), makes a decision as to how to deal with stimulus and then downloads the response to the amygdala

Amygdala then creates emotion and action through the body and the punch is blocked.

Umm. . .Nope. Sorry. Not even. And if you’re training that way, I feel you’re seriously missing the boat. That’s how you end up being one of those officers in Darren’s study who didn’t realize he was being attacked with a knife. Oh, certainly, we deal with waza and kata and specific responses to specific attacks, and it’s both appropriate and necessary to do this to teach your body effective ways of moving. But on the most fundamental level you shouldn’t be responding to a punch, kick, grab, stab, etc. – you should be perceiving and responding to the changing shape of the space between yourself and the other person and getting off the line(s) of force his movement represents, without contesting. It should be exactly the same, and feel exactly the same, whether that movement vector is connected with an intentional attack or not.

If you’re walking along the sidewalk and see a piece of construction scaffolding break loose and begin to fall, you don’t contest the right of way with it – you get out of the way. If you’re crossing the street and a car comes around the corner and doesn’t stop because the driver doesn’t see you, you don’t contest the space with the vehicle: You get out of the way, and NOT by moving along the same line of force (if you do move along it, the car will just hit you a little later). If a passerby on the sidewalk suddenly stumbles and lurches toward you, you get off that line of movement. This last one could have been an intentional surprise attack. . .but you don’t know that, and your response is the same either way. You get bumped, slammed, or struck from behind: You move with that pressure and let yourself drift offline. That one might also be an attack, or it might not; it might be a person, or it might be an inanimate object – no difference either way. Once you’re off that line and moving in “safe-shaped space”, you can see and feel what else you should be doing. None of these are things which should be causing any particular emotional stress while they are occurring. Same with an attack. You’re only going to get “emotional” if you’re allowing yourself to be engaged and trapped by a “connection” with the person or his weapon rather than dealing with vectors of force and the shape of the space.

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

-- Dale

Please excuse my ignorance, as I was under the impression that Survival Stress Reaction could be controled. Unless I misread something, Darren Laur's perspective seems to be that it can't (parasympathetic nervous system).

I seem to recall a chapter in Destructive Emotions by Daniel Goleman which concerned itself with a European turned Buddhist that was being studied with an EEG. It was found that he was able to significantly lower his startle reflex despite a variety of attempts to disrupt his concentration. For a historical perspective, I also remember reading an article about Buddhists remaining calm while engaging in certain concentration heavy tasks despite the presence of live gun fire.

These points are hardly worth mentioning in the context of the scientific research by Siddle and Breedlove, but I'm just a little bit skeptical, especially when there may be other avenues worth exploring.

Please excuse my ignorance, as I was under the impression that Survival Stress Reaction could be controled. Unless I misread something, Darren Laur's perspective seems to be that it can't (parasympathetic nervous system).


That does seem to be his perspective. What I'm getting at is that, through proper training, it can in most situations be avoided or "preempted" through training in the correct way. If you've already "got it", it's very likely too late to control it.

I think you and I are essentially "on the same page" here.

I suppose the next question would relate to the effectiveness of the Dojo atmosphere for combating the potential effects of SSR. Having sparred in a full contact atmosphere with previous Martial Arts, I still find myself succeptable to SSR in a non-training environment.

This is one of my pet peeves regarding the relatively recent wave of specific "combat systems" which primarily seem to prepare students for mixed martial art competitions. The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Is it the philosophy behind Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu that makes preparation more effective than other "styles" or is it a randomly generated element supported by an instructor that has specific skills outside of his martial background? For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

I suppose the next question would relate to the effectiveness of the Dojo atmosphere for combating the potential effects of SSR. Having sparred in a full contact atmosphere with previous Martial Arts, I still find myself succeptable to SSR in a non-training environment.

This is one of my pet peeves regarding the relatively recent wave of specific "combat systems" which primarily seem to prepare students for mixed martial art competitions. The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Is it the philosophy behind Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu that makes preparation more effective than other "styles" or is it a randomly generated element supported by an instructor that has specific skills outside of his martial background? For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

That raises a number of interesting points.

Before I got into "The Booj" a bit over 20 years ago, I spent about 15 years in a variety of martial arts where competition or "sparring" was the norm. At the point where I began Bujinkan training, I knew I could fight well if I had to, knew I could handle getting hit or kicked pretty hard and work on through it, etc. . . .But I also felt no confidence about my ability to control a potentially or actually violent encounter, or to physically respond without massive "overkill". I think that sort of uncertainty, this sense of having to make difficult choices in a short time about what to do, can contribute to SSR.

With the typical MA training approach, you may have a sort of certainty about your general level of ability/skill, but still feel that each encounter is still highly uncertain in outcome -- thus raising the anxiety threshold.

With BBT, everything seems to be constantly uncertain, nothing is "fixed". I still have no clue what I'd do in any given encounter -- but I've gotten used to that feeling from training, where I don't know what I'm doing most of the time anway! -- so I don't worry about it. I can feel confident that I'll do something and not freeze up, and that it has a strong likelihood of being effective.

In that sense, yes, I feel the philosophy behind BBT training is probably highly significant -- provided we're talking about the same thing. :wink1: What do you mean by it yourself?

The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Perhaps; I'll at least agree with you that they're not the same. About all they have in common is that both involve the need to effectively respond to physical aggression.

For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

Certainly one's life experiences will to some extent shape the way one teaches (as well as the way one learns); but so will one's culture and one's social circumstances. Someone with your instructor's experiences (or mine, which are comparable in some ways) might be one of the best people around for communicating "the feeling" and ability necessary to effectively deal with real life-protection situations, yet not have especially "stellar" movement. Someone else might be really superb at helping you refine the most subtle nuances to enable you to generate the maximum possible results with absolutely minimal force, yet not be able to fight his way out of a paper bag. (Still others might be able to do either, but be hopelessly inept at communicating such things to others as a teacher!) Practitioners in some countries might, on a mass/statistical basis, approach the art from the standpoint of needing it for survival due to threats of invasion, ongoing terrorism, civil war, etc; while those in some other country may approach their training more as recreation or playing "tactical games".

I guess one of the things that concerns me about the Martial Art world in general is the distinction between fighting and self-protection. It seems to me that any Martial Art has the potential to be effective for self-protection, but all too often I find the line blurring between self-protection and fighting (not combat). I don't feel that it should be this way as I see them as two entirely different approaches to training.

This certainty that you refer to regarding general level of ability is of great concern to me because I often wonder if this is an instance where there is some fuzziness. Perhaps with typical MA training today, the confidence that you're referring to is more closely related to fighting than self-protection.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you refer to the uncertainty of BBT. This, I don't think, is exclusive to the environment we train in, but I do feel that it is distinct somehow when approaching what we do from a philosophical standpoint.


It's almost as if uncertainty is a philosophy in and of itself, and that it should somehow be embraced, not only in the physical, but in day to day struggles as well. When one realizes this, as you seem to have done, this leaves the practitioner with very few choices. The road that most rational people choose to take is one of perseverance. To me this is different at its core than anything else out there, which is why I suppose I felt at home the first time I walked into my Sensei's dojo.


While I think our perspective is complementary in this regard, there is a difference. As your profile states, you are at Nosebleed Level. I am very much a beginner, so while I think I grasp the esoteric elements of the Bujinkan on at least some level, I do not share your confidence that I won't freeze up. There just isn't enough of a foundation yet for me to know myself well enough. For example, upon entering the Bujinkan I discovered, rather alarmingly, that all of my previous skills within the Martial Art world seemed suddenly lacking. This was one of those eye opening events that changed how I viewed the world and my place in it.


Regarding your last paragraph, I think I've come to see my training as a path to making me a better person. I don't think this is too lofty a goal as there have already been radical changes in the way I approach things. One of my insecurities floats around the idea that this may not meld with the other world views present in the Bujinkan. It should, I suppose, but when one's focus is colored by a life’s experiences (like yours and my Sensei's), I often wonder if something is lost in the translation depending on the outlook of the student.


While I think that teaching is a very honorable profession, I also recognize that it is dangerous in some ways, especially when dealing with widely different perspectives among students. Despite all attempts by a teacher to communicate effectively, the student will take that information and remake it in some manner. I’m not sure if this distressing for a teacher or if it’s just accepted as part of the process. I’m not referring to anything too dramatic, but when you have a teacher that has dedicated himself to something such as the military or a profession which presents any number of dangers there is a dynamic there that is very difficult to grasp for someone that has not followed the same path.


I think I ramble, but I’ve learned something from this discussion already. Thank you!

Dale:


First off, good to interact with you again !!!!!, a student of mine was surfing and found this thread

You stated:

“If this were so, then sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not be possible. Certainly, the spontaneous flow in this little video clip (http://www.bujinkansf.org/seago.mpg) would not be possible.”


The difference here is the triggering of the amygdala through the fear response. I would argue that playing sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not trigger the amygdala in the same way as a street confrontation where the risk of serious injury or even death are a true reality. It is because of this scientific fact, that the brain can and will function in a “high road” fashion thus allowing cognitive flow if the amygdala is not triggered. The video link you provided demonstrates this perfectly (closed environment)


You stated:

“Combatives instructor Hock Hochheim addresses this issue pretty ably in this article: http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm. He goes into much more specific detail, but this gets his point across pretty well:”


Again, if Hock was correct, then how do you explain the following:


FROM MY UPDATED ARTICLE ON THE ANATOMY OF FEAR

http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/The%20Anatomy%20Of%20Fear%20and%20How%20It%20Relat es%20To%20Survival%20Skills%20Training2.doc


Knowing that the brain has a dual pathway to deal with what I like to call progressive and spontaneous fear stimuli, Dr. LeDoux has stated, “there are problems associated with the double wiring between the higher cortex and the amygdala. Unfortunately the neural connections from the cortex down to the amygdala are less well developed than are connections from the amygdala back up to the cortex. Thus, the amygdala exerts a greater influence on the cortex than vice versa. Once an emotion has been turned on, it is difficult to exert conscious control over it at will.” What this means to me is that in an unexpected spontaneous attack, if you are training motor skills that are not congruent with what the amygdala will cause the body to do, more specifically the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation” no matter how well trained the response, it will be overridden. But many in the combatives field believe that we can make a trained response the dominant response through repetition and training using stimulus/response training methods. In a “high road” scenario this will work given SSR issues and Hick’s law, but in a “low road” scenario, the answer will only be “yes” as long as the motor skill taught is congruent with the automatic protective reflex the amygdala will cause the body to take.

To demonstrate the importance of this “congruency” issue, an empirical study that examined 98 shooting scenarios that were either spontaneous or non-spontaneous in nature, firearms instructor, Westmorland (1989), compared two shooting styles/systems (Weaver and Isosceles) to see which one was more suitable during times of what Westmorland called “Combat Stress.” In this study, Westmorland utilized dynamic scenarios based training with dye marking rounds. It should be noted that the majority of the officers involved in this study were “Weaver” practitioners. The results of the study:

Spontaneous under 10 feet: 39 total scenarios

96.7 % Isosceles (29 events)

3.3% Weaver (1 event)

62.1% one-handed stance (18 events)

23.1% failed to respond (9 events)

Spontaneous over 10 feet: 27 total scenarios

92.6% Isosceles (25 events)

7.4% Weaver (2 events)

14.8% One-handed stance (4 events)

Non-spontaneous under 10 feet: 27 total scenarios

74.1% Isosceles (20 events)

25.9% Weaver (7 events)
Non-spontaneous over 10 feet: 5 total scenarios:

60.0% Isosceles (3 events)

40.0 Weaver (2 events)

Westmoreland study results:

56.1% two-handed Isosceles stance (55 events)

12.2% one-handed stance (12 events)

22.5% two-handed Weaver Stance (22 events)

9.2% officer failed to respond


Westmoreland’s study created quite the debate in the Weaver vs. Isosceles shooting camps, and stood alone until 1997 when a respected firearms instructor by the name of Bill Burroughs (former assistant Director of the Sigarms Training Academy) conducted a similar study. In Burroughs study, he asked two very important questions:

· “What does the average trained officer resort to when faced with a simulated and spontaneous life threatening assault” and;

· “How does this response compare to the officer’s previously trained shooting stance.”

Burroughs empirical research study involved 157 officers:

· 47% were Weaver trained shooters
· 17% were Isosceles trained shooters
· 32% stated that they used a “natural” stance

In Burroughs study, all 157 officers were placed into 188 life threatening dynamic training scenarios, which utilized Simunition technology. When Burroughs reviewed the findings of his research, he found what once officers were placed into a dynamic/spontaneous-shooting situation, the above noted percentages changed dramatically:

· 59% of the 157 officers adopted an Isosceles stance
· 19% of the 157 officers adopted a Weaver stance
· 7% of the 157 officers adopted a “natural” stance
· The rest did not respond at all.

Another very interesting observation that Burroughs made during his research was that those officers who adopted a Weaver stance had the “opportunity” to “pre-select” their stance before the scenario became critical.

The above two studies (Westmoreland and Burroughs) were further tested by Steve Barron and Clyde Beasly of Hocking College in Ohio. Both of these instructors are firearms managers for the regional police academy. Hocking College was teaching “Weaver” shooting techniques to recruits, but when these same recruits were moved from static range training to dynamic force on force simulation training using Simunition cartridges, they noted consistently that the taught Weaver stance was not being used. Instead, they observed that these same recruits would adopt a two handed Isosceles shooting platform.

Many of the experts in the field of Sport Psychology and Motor Performance do not find the above noted research all that surprising. In fact, Robert Weinberg (PhD), a well known and highly respected sports psychologist, stated (after reviewing Westmoreland’s study), “One principal which seems appropriate is that individuals usually return to their preferred or instinctual mode of behavior especially under stress. When put into a
stressful situation, it is instinctual to face your opposition (Isosceles) rather than turn to the side (Weaver).”

The purpose of the above noted studies is not to get into the debate between Weaver and Isosceles shooters, but rather to demonstrate the fact that if a trained response is not “congruent” with what neuroscientists have called the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation”, it will be over ridden.


I respect Hock and his training background, but if his thought process was correct, then why didn’t the WEAVER shooters adopt a WEAVER stance as trained ????? Answer, they were not congruent with somatic reflex Potentiation caused by the triggering of the amygdala.


Hick’s Law, for those of us who teach and really understand Combatives, is specific to the issue of amygdala triggering during SSR !!!!!!!


When Hock stated:

“. . .Later that evening while coaching my son’s little league baseball team, I saw this very instructor coaching his team on another ball field. He was teaching ten year-olds to multi-task and make split-second decisions as his infielders, working double plays with runners on base. It was clear the coach expected more from these kids than he did from we adult cops that morning. Hick’s Law was not to be found on that kid's diamond.”

IMO this has nothing to do with how and why I teach Hick’s Law. This is totally out of combatives context. I would agree with Hock’s statement due to the fact that the ten year olds were not in SSR due to a clear and present threat to life, but rather in a “high road” event where “cognitive” multi-tasking are very possible !!!!!!


You stated:

“I can accept that; Survival Stress Reaction *will* do that. Personally, I feel that what Darren describes as stimulus/response training is really asking for problems and is likely to *create* SSR.”


I must disagree with you on this point. This is one reason why in firearms training when you have a stoppage (stimulus) we teach one response to fix the problem (Tap, rack, ready). If this does not fix the problem, then officers are immediately taught to abort to a plan “b” strategy (rip, work, tap, rack, ready). The reason why this works so well is because when multi-responses are taught to fix a specific problem (as was done in the past) officers were dying due to the fact that high road brain functions that would allow an officer to cognitively multi task to pick one of several fixes to a problem were over ridden. (again this is why Hick’s Law is so important in the context specific to the issue of amygdala triggering during SSR !!!!!!!)



Can SSR be minimized… YES…. especially through realistic training

Can “cognitive” multi tasking take place……YES….. in a progressive “high road” event ……in a spontaneous “low Road” event…….NO……this is even more true if the trained response is not congruent with the amygdalae’s reflexive response. The science to date is very clear on this point !!!!!!




Darren
www.personalprotectionsystems.ca

[QUOTE=Dale Seago]That raises a number of interesting points.


With BBT, everything seems to be constantly uncertain, nothing is "fixed". I still have no clue what I'd do in any given encounter -- but I've gotten used to that feeling from training, where I don't know what I'm doing most of the time anway! -- so I don't worry about it. I can feel confident that I'll do something and not freeze up, and that it has a strong likelihood of being effective. [end quote=Dale Seago]


Dale, i couldnt agree with you more here. In past years something would happen during the normal course of the day, and I would just be too slow to deal with it. Now my body and mind react in ways I never did before. For instance, of a non-martial thing, One of the girls I work with had set a Perrier glass bottle on top of a little table in our work area and someone else bumped the table and it began to fall. Without thinking about it, I reached around the table using body and mind caught the bottle before it hit the ground. Two customers sitting there were amazed. Their reaction had been to raise their feet so the wouldnt get splashed.

In a martial fashion, in my training now I just move and do what i feel I need to do without labeling the thing that is happening and the outcome is usually a new technique I have never done before, but is based on a principle I have learned.

Dale, i couldnt agree with you more here. In past years something would happen during the normal course of the day, and I would just be too slow to deal with it. Now my body and mind react in ways I never did before. For instance, of a non-martial thing, One of the girls I work with had set a Perrier glass bottle on top of a little table in our work area and someone else bumped the table and it began to fall. Without thinking about it, I reached around the table using body and mind caught the bottle before it hit the ground. Two customers sitting there were amazed. Their reaction had been to raise their feet so the wouldnt get splashed.

This demonstrates what Darren said here:

Can “cognitive” multi tasking take place……YES….. in a progressive “high road” event ……in a spontaneous “low Road” event…….NO……this is even more true if the trained response is not congruent with the amygdalae’s reflexive response. The science to date is very clear on this point !!!!!!

The examples that many of us could give of 'muscle memory'--a bad misnomer as it is really conditioned response--normally involve controlled situations, or non-combative situations. Are these a testament to what martial arts can do for you in everyday life? Absolutely! However, these conditioned responses can be short-circuited with what Darren calls SSR.

I don't think there is any disagreement that the effects of an adrenaline dump, or SSR, or the chemical cocktail can be minimized. But those effects will be there.

The relaxation in what I would term high-level MAs, like taijutsu and aiki based jujutsu, can go a long way in helping to minimize confrontational stress, but I've seen in others--and myself--the look and the body language that occurs when people encounter what Tony Blauer terms a bio-mechanic void. We have a tendency to go primal when we start to lose control and things go south...

Anyway, good discussion. For the most part, I think much of what Darren and Dale are saying only varies by degree.

One of the things that confuses me about these theories related to SSR is that they don't seem to be falsifiable. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. While I don't have the answers that I need there have been some studies indicating that it's possible to strengthen the neurological circuits around the amygdala, perhaps creating a buffer against fear.

For the most part, I think much of what Darren and Dale are saying only varies by degree.

I think so too, and I'll have more to say on this later, particularly regarding the action of the amygdala and on mitigation of SSR's effects if you do find yourself going into it, as well as some comments on shooting. Right now I have to take off for New Year's Day dojo cleanup followed by a run over to Sacramento, from which I won't return until tomorrow night; I should be able to revisit this on Monday.

Darren, it's great to "see" you here, and I want to thank you for contributing to the discussion and helping me to better understand what you're getting at! I don't think we have fundamental disagreements here.

IMHO I believe a lot of this issue depends on the range and expectedness of the attack. If its close and/or unexpected you are going to get the "brain cramps" much worse than if the range is further and/or you expect it.

I like to compare it to NFDD (flash bangs). When Im throwing one I know whats coming and can "eat the bang" by entering right behind it and its effects on me are slight. If somebody were to toss one into my livingroom right now while Im not expecting it, it will have full effect on me regardless of how much experience Ive had with them.

Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!

Darren

Ive also posted in other threads here of my experience with simunition training. I switched from weaver to mod. Isoceles real quick. All my training with weaver vanished pretty quick when I was getting "shot at" And that wasnt even the "real thing".

Hello Darren,
Welcome to martialtalk.com and the Traditional Ninjutsu folder. As you can see, we are not just a bunch of guys interested in doing things for tradition's sake.

Knowing that the brain has a dual pathway to deal with what I like to call progressive and spontaneous fear stimuli, Dr. LeDoux has stated, “there are problems associated with the double wiring between the higher cortex and the amygdala. Unfortunately the neural connections from the cortex down to the amygdala are less well developed than are connections from the amygdala back up to the cortex. Thus, the amygdala exerts a greater influence on the cortex than vice versa. Once an emotion has been turned on, it is difficult to exert conscious control over it at will.” What this means to me is that in an unexpected spontaneous attack, if you are training motor skills that are not congruent with what the amygdala will cause the body to do, more specifically the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation” no matter how well trained the response, it will be overridden.

If I understand the above, and the rest of your post, the key to proper use of multiple techniques is the training of the amygdala through some sort of stress/ scenario training. Tradditional methods used techniques like this during training and there have been times in class here in Japan where I thought, no make that I knew I was going to die or at least go to the hospital if I failed to perform the technique correctly. Stephen Hayes has copied the training methods of Peyton Quinn and his armored assailent training.

Is it not that a lot of techniques are not the issue, but rather the methods used to train in them that may be at the heart of the problem?

In my experience, Hicks Law is like the martial arts equivalent of Occams Razor: "Responses to (X) attack should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

I cant count how many seminars Ive been to that have been of the "1001 responses to the right hook" variety. Keep your tool box full of well maintained and well used tools, not fancy gadgets. Id prefer to have a few tools in it that have multiple uses so I dont have to "buy" another one....What Ive always liked about the fillipino stuff is the response to the angle of attack vs. response to specific technique approach. Compact and flexible.

Keep your tool box full of well maintained and well used tools, not fancy gadgets. Id prefer to have a few tools in it that have multiple uses so I dont have to "buy" another one.

I personally have a bit of reservation with the "one- size- fits- all" type of technique. The people that market such tricks all do not impress me.

On the other hand, I have to agree with your comments about the 1001 nifty tricks. What the hell happens when you need #1002?

I seem to think the happy middle ground is to keep your concepts and strategies to the bare minimum. I may be sounding weird (blame the ninhonshu- I have been imbibing heavily tonight :drink2tha ) but I think that the minimum strategies you employ towards a violent situation helps you deal with it better than minimum technique.

What the heck am I talking about? Well..... I guess that my problem is with people that deal with training situations in one way (i.e. sparring) and say that in a real situation they would do something else.

Oh yeah.... they don't protect certain areas in UFC matches but they will certainly do so if they really get into a fight. :uhyeah: (Can you tell what I was watching on Japanese TV New Year's Eve?) And sure... if they face a knife they will change the way they deal with the situation. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Lets hope they even know the other guy has a knife. I have faced that type of situation and can say that even drunken, homeless morons can do a half decent job of hiding a knife from view.

In the Bujinkan I train in we train to always try to avoid a blow rather than stand and take it. Of course, if you know that the other guy has no weapon (like it is forbidden in an "unlimited fighting" :lol: sports event) then it is less efficient than many strategies you could use. In many unarmed sports events Bujinkan members do not do as well as those that train for that particular set of circumstances. But we do not have one set of skills for one type of event and another set for yet another. What works fairly well against one will work against another. We just can't specialize like the guys that do sports.

So keep your strategies to a minimum and expect to fight as you train. I guess that is what I am trying to say. I hope people can understand me and when I sober up I will not look back on this and think, "what the hell was I thinnking?" :soapbox:

Where the hell are my dried frog pills? :confused:

The difference here is the triggering of the amygdala through the fear response. I would argue that playing sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not trigger the amygdala in the same way as a street confrontation where the risk of serious injury or even death are a true reality.

Excellent point, Darren. I'd submit that the amygdala still may come into play here, though perhaps not in quite the same way.

It is because of this scientific fact, that the brain can and will function in a “high road” fashion thus allowing cognitive flow if the amygdala is not triggered. The video link you provided demonstrates this perfectly (closed environment)

With the video link, once engaged it was almost all non-cognitive "feeling": I wasn't consciously aware of just what either of us was doing most of the time. A Bujinkan student who trains with me reported something very similar in an actual attack situation from a few months ago in Wales -- though the assailant was a huge dog, not a human:

That being said, you just reminded me of the
one "bad thing" that happened while I was travelling.

No... It wasn't a fight, or a confrontation with someone.... It was a
dog attack. But, I think it may just jibe with your commentary here.

Ian's dog, Ghost (who is a huge monster of a 1/2 akita, 1/2 alsatian),
was making like he was going to ralph all over the place one morning.
Being the sensible Yank that I am, I let him out so he wouldn't do it
all over the floor. Okay.... Fine. Ghost does his thing, and ambles
around the yard a bit before sitting smack in the middle of the yard.

I, again being sensible, try to get him to come in. (Ian's yard is
bounded by a hedge with a gap leading into the next yard that Ghost
could jump over into, so he usually had him on a runline while in the
back yard.) So, Ghost -- who had just been sick, and a one-person
critter to boot -- has a go.

The whole event was surreal. Somehow, I stayed calm, and just kept
moving. Somewhere in the back of my brain I *knew* that if I stopped
moving, or let him get a firm grip on the arm, the arm was toast. In
retrospect: When I moved, it was in such a way as to a) keep the arm
he was going for ahead of him, and b) make it difficult for him to get
around my torso to actually get the firm hold. Striking the animal
didn't even occur to me. Perhaps, because I knew on some level that
that would only make it worse. I'm not entirely sure on that one, though.

How does this go with your commentary? Well, the point here is that I
didn't actually engage the dog. I engaged the space he wanted, saving
my arm from becoming so much tinder. Very strange, the whole thing.
And, it's only now - some 6 or 7 months later - that the mental video
shows me more precisely what I did.

What's interesting to me is that absolutely *none* of this was
conscious on my part. I just moved, and kept moving until it was all
over. The whole event was surreal to me. And, it still amazes me how
calm I stayed during it.

I have some articles on the action of the amygdala linked, along with another short video clip you might get a chuckle out of, in this thread. (http://www.russianmartialart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=212&highlight=throwing+magically)

An aside on the shooting studies you mentioned:

Last year I went through my employer's "Advanced Protection Firearms" course, immediately following 12 rather grueling 12-to-14-hour days in our Executive/Dignitary Protection training course. (http://www.steelefoundation.com/training/training.php) The shooting course began with a graded, timed course of fire used for US State Department protective agents as a baseline; anyone who didn't pass it the first time through was dismissed from the course, and everything through the next two days built from there. The instructors did not emphasize any particular platform (e.g. Weaver/Isosceles) for shooting, leaving that to the individual students. I did notice, though, that even though most of my shooting over the years had been at least nominally "Weaveresque", in the high-pressure scenarios we found ourselves in I naturally adopted isosceles once we'd moved on (fairly early) from single-target engagements to multiple-target engagements (which also included "shoot/no-shoot" target recognition, foot movement in a protective formation, cover and evacuation of the principal by the appropriate team members while the "correct" team member engages the threat, etc. -- all done with everyone wearing loaded firearms on a "hot" range).

On the other hand, these were not self-defense scenarios, but "other-protective". Seeking cover or trying to present a lower-profile target were not options, as the agent him- or herself IS the cover in a AOP (Attack On Principal) situation until the threat is neutralized or the team has evacuated the protectee.

Still, I think that in a self-defense situation today using a firearm, I'd now probably find myself going the isosceles route. Not only is it better if you're wearing ballistic armor, but "the feeling" is also congruent with the way Hatsumi sensei has been training us over the last couple of years: The emphasis has been more on moving into the opponent's attack, very much in a "counterambush" fashion.

(Oh, and while I'm thinking about firearms:

. . .in firearms training when you have a stoppage (stimulus) we teach one response to fix the problem (Tap, rack, ready). If this does not fix the problem, then officers are immediately taught to abort to a plan “b” strategy (rip, work, tap, rack, ready).

Our "plan b" is "drop (mag), rack, rack, load (mag), tap, rack, ready" for the possibility of a double-feed. Works amazingly well and surprisingly quickly; and as the chief instructor commented, "You have the rest of your life to do it." :wink2: )

In your article, you did state:

As I said earlier, SSR is an autonomic response, which happens without conscious thought. Having said this, Siddle in his research has found that a person can manage SSR to attain that peak 115-145 bpm range. . .

And I'll confess I didn't pay adequate attention to it.

Tgace commented,

IMHO I believe a lot of this issue depends on the range and expectedness of the attack. If its close and/or unexpected you are going to get the "brain cramps" much worse than if the range is further and/or you expect it.

I like to compare it to NFDD (flash bangs). When Im throwing one I know whats coming and can "eat the bang" by entering right behind it and its effects on me are slight. If somebody were to toss one into my livingroom right now while Im not expecting it, it will have full effect on me regardless of how much experience Ive had with them.

And that's pretty much how I see it as well. For example, I've noticed with people trained in boxing that when they can get any inkling that a blow is coming they can absorb it, "slip" it, or otherwise minimize its effects; but if they don't see or feel it coming and it's a total surprise, the effect on them is pretty much the same as on an untrained person.

If I understand the above, and the rest of your post, the key to proper use of multiple techniques is the training of the amygdala through some sort of stress/ scenario training. Tradditional methods used techniques like this during training and there have been times in class here in Japan where I thought, no make that I knew I was going to die or at least go to the hospital if I failed to perform the technique correctly. . .

Is it not that a lot of techniques are not the issue, but rather the methods used to train in them that may be at the heart of the problem?

I agree with Don's view here, and I've been in such situations as well. His last sentence above goes to what you said about methods having to be congruent with the Somatic Reflex Potentiation, and I think we're all in agreement here as far as a "surprise/SSR" situation is concerned. As Don indicated, the fundamental approach in our training really is to do just one thing: Get off the vector of force directed against us. (Or, as we'd say in the context of a AOP/ambush situation in EP work, "Get off the X!" -- that is, out of the "kill zone" of the ambush.) And it's equally valid whether what you continue with from there is to engage and neutralize the threat, or simply escape.

Looks like theres more agreement than disagreement here. At its root, isnt this Hicks Law discussion about paring down technique to the fewest and most effective options? Sounds reasonable to me. The failure drill comparison is interesting. Regardless of the one you like, if you train one response to it, its going to be the one you use. If you taught 3 different ways to clear a Type II stoppage you are just muddying the waters IMHO.

Reminds me of the saying that goes (loosely) that the "expert is one who can execute the basics more quickly and effectively than his opponent".

Could be an entire different thread on this (so I apologize for the drift), but it seems to me that training for conceptual variations would necessitate different techniques. And it could get cumbersome exploring the examples. Assume a right upper extremity attack. You could respond with evasion alone to any of the cardinal directions, demonstrating a minimum of 8 maneuvers (not including complementary hand maneuvers, such as parrying, jamming or entangling).

You could respond by addressing the attacking limb: If you meet it contralaterally (your right to his right), that response could go to the inside line or outside line (medial or lateral to his attacking limb, relative to the front centerline of his body). There's 2 more. Also, different effects if you go to the distal forearm versus the proximal arm. To what do you blend from each of these options? Couple more techniques as expressions of conceptual applications right there.

You could use the ipsilateral side (your left addressing his right), inside or outside line. There's 2 more.

Now address height (responding under or over the plane of attack). 2 more. And all we have so far is a single right handed "generic" assault. What about Contra-lateral & High, vs. Ipsilateral & Low, and the variations presented in that theme? A couple more.

Now reply by attacking his base (legs) either as he advances, or after he has settled, or as he settles. Depending on the type of leg attack / low-line kick you choose (ignoring entanglements for the moment, just to keep it simple), with which leg you wish to deliver it, and at which point in time strategically during his assault you wish to deliver it...there's over a dozen more. And we are still only on the right nebulous upper extremity assault (punch, push, reach, weapons presentation, etc.).

Another question: Do you respond differently if the blow is hooking vs. straight? Low vs. high in relation to your own body position pre-attack? What about in relation to your attackers body/posture? Do you have weapons available? Where on your person? What are the reaches and depth penetration capacities of your own weapons? These factors will surely influence your decisions...ideally (granted time).

There are concepts and principles that inform a "veritable plethora" of techniques (read: "mechanical, manual applications of concepts")...do we focus on the concepts, and allow for the creative unconscious to make up the application under fire, or endeavor to train technical applications for response from muscle memory?

There has to be a middle ground that makes sense; something between the 1001 answers, and the 1-2 answers. The master swordsman can not train for all possibilities, because they are not all known. Nevertheless, he must certainly train. Single strokes as simple variations on a compass will hardly suffice.

Looking forward to the informed replies of such distinguished gentlemen (read: "Guys that are out there doing it"),

Dave

Back on thread...Mr. Seago: Sounds like a blast!

D.

Looking forward to the informed replies of such distinguished gentlemen (read: "Guys that are out there doing it"),

Dave
Dont know that I qualify, but I will submit this quote from the book of 5 rings...

The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him. You must thoroughly research this.
If you can make the connection to this topic you can see my viewpoint on the technique/concept thing.

Could be an entire different thread on this (so I apologize for the drift), but it seems to me that training for conceptual variations would necessitate different techniques. And it could get cumbersome exploring the examples. Assume a right upper extremity attack. You could respond with evasion alone to any of the cardinal directions, demonstrating a minimum of 8 maneuvers (not including complementary hand maneuvers, such as parrying, jamming or entangling).

You could respond by addressing the attacking limb: If you meet it contralaterally (your right to his right), that response could go to the inside line or outside line (medial or lateral to his attacking limb, relative to the front centerline of his body). There's 2 more. Also, different effects if you go to the distal forearm versus the proximal arm. To what do you blend from each of these options? Couple more techniques as expressions of conceptual applications right there.

You could use the ipsilateral side (your left addressing his right), inside or outside line. There's 2 more.

Now address height (responding under or over the plane of attack). 2 more. And all we have so far is a single right handed "generic" assault. What about Contra-lateral & High, vs. Ipsilateral & Low, and the variations presented in that theme? A couple more.

Now reply by attacking his base (legs) either as he advances, or after he has settled, or as he settles. Depending on the type of leg attack / low-line kick you choose (ignoring entanglements for the moment, just to keep it simple), with which leg you wish to deliver it, and at which point in time strategically during his assault you wish to deliver it...there's over a dozen more. And we are still only on the right nebulous upper extremity assault (punch, push, reach, weapons presentation, etc.).

Another question: Do you respond differently if the blow is hooking vs. straight? Low vs. high in relation to your own body position pre-attack? What about in relation to your attackers body/posture? Do you have weapons available? Where on your person? What are the reaches and depth penetration capacities of your own weapons? These factors will surely influence your decisions...ideally (granted time).

There are concepts and principles that inform a "veritable plethora" of techniques (read: "mechanical, manual applications of concepts")...do we focus on the concepts, and allow for the creative unconscious to make up the application under fire, or endeavor to train technical applications for response from muscle memory?

There has to be a middle ground that makes sense; something between the 1001 answers, and the 1-2 answers. The master swordsman can not train for all possibilities, because they are not all known. Nevertheless, he must certainly train. Single strokes as simple variations on a compass will hardly suffice.

Whew. A lot there -- but excellent!

Certainly there are times when we work very specifically and intensively on precise technical aspects of formal-transmission kata and waza. In general, however, the training model in my dojo (http://www.bujinkansf.org/faq/#kata) is one I've picked up from Hatsumi sensei over the years:

. . .In the old arts such as ours, kata are generally performed by two (or more) partners and are quite brief, reflecting the reality of combat encounters. They teach an art's basic concepts: typical attacks and common ways of dealing with them. Kata may also refer to a class or set of waza (techniques), especially groupings which embody a particular principle or group of related principles. Kata are the starting point for learning the arts.

. . .The approach to kata training in taijutsu as taught by Hatsumi sensei is very different and reflects the Protean fluidity and dynamism needed in real, life-protective combat. First, the basic "transmission" form as recorded in the densho scroll is shown, and the student will have some time to simply work on the mechanics of the movements and the aspects of timing, distance and positioning, balance-taking, etc. which the base form presents. From that point, various "problems" will be introduced for exploration. Some examples would be: How might the kata change when a different distance is used? When you can't move to a "required" position within the form because of some obstacle? When the form is done with a particular weapon or weapons instead of unarmed? When you have a weapon and want to use it, but it isn't in your hand? When the opponent has the weapon and you need to keep him from using it, or want to use it against him yourself? When multiple opponents, or multiple opponents armed with a variety of different weapons (all with their own unique characteristics), enter the picture?

Part of the object here is to require the student to take continually more complex sets of relationships into account, while still maintaining the essence and "feeling" of the transmission form. In this way the student grows to truly understand and incorporate the principles of the form and can freely adapt them in actual combat as needed, instead of being hampered by a "fixed" sequence of movements -- or feeling that form is useless, irrelevant, and should be abandoned.

In a sense, one eventually learns to "transcend" forms by incorporating (literally "bringing into the body") their underlying concepts and principles. This is the difference between learning a particular system (which is what most people do) and becoming the art in one's own person.

In other words, the idea is less one of learning the kata (unless of course you want to teach) than it is one of "learning FROM the kata". . .a bit more of a tactical emphasis than a technical emphasis.

Nonetheless any martial art -- whether it's an unarmed one, swordsmanship, or tactical firearms use -- has its fundamental techniques or kihon which form the technical "base" on which everything else is built. The foundation of our training is found in the Sanshin no kata from Gyokko ryu, a series of body-movement training exercises currently taught as a series of body-shifting evasions, each followed by a particular strike; and the kihon happo or "8 fundamentals", also (primarily) from Gyokko ryu. (You can see some video examples on an Australian Bujinkan website (http://www.bujinkanadelaide.org.au/multimedia.htm#kihon). I can't view them on the 'pooter I'm using at the moment so can't vouch for the quality. . .I do see that one of the Kihon Happo is mislabeled as Muso Dori when what's being shown is Musha Dori.) The Sanshin no kata and Kihon Happo can really be seen as comprising an entire martial art in themselves, as even things in various ryuha of the Bujinkan which -- superficially -- don't seem to remotely resemble them can still be shown to relate in some way to aspects of their movement, principles, and concepts.

You commented, "The master swordsman can not train for all possibilities, because they are not all known", and this is certainly true in the sense that it is ineffective and counterproductive to try to learn (and then access in real-time!) a specific response to every possible specific attack. The teaching method Hatsumi uses, however (of which I haven't really even scratched the surface), really seems oriented toward enabling the practitioner to survive situations he has never encountered and to do something appropriate in the midst of "the fog of war" when he can't really tell just what's going on.

That doesn't mean everyone "gets it". And it's certainly not an "overnight" process. I remember being present a few years ago when people were struggling with something Hatsumi sensei was presenting, and he made some comment along the line of, "Some of you may think this is too difficult to learn. But it really doesn't matter if you can't learn it: You'll just die, that's all." :wink2:

The difference here is the triggering of the amygdala through the fear response. I would argue that playing sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not trigger the amygdala in the same way as a street confrontation where the risk of serious injury or even death are a true reality. It is because of this scientific fact, that the brain can and will function in a “high road” fashion thus allowing cognitive flow if the amygdala is not triggered. The video link you provided demonstrates this perfectly (closed environment)


Darren
www.personalprotectionsystems.ca (http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/)Would it be fair then to say the reaction and the subsequent SSR condition is directly related to your perception of the aggressors / situation?

-Daniel

Would it be fair then to say the reaction and the subsequent SSR condition is directly related to your perception of the aggressors / situation?

I'd definitely like to hear what Darren thinks about this. I also think there are some relevant clues in the three articles on amygdalic function I linked in the Russian Martial Art thread (http://www.russianmartialart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=212) I cited earlier in this discussion:

Beware and Be Aware: Capture of Spatial Attention by Fear Related Stimuli in Neglect (http://labnic.unige.ch/nic/papers/PV_SS_NR2001a.pdf)

Hijacking of the Amygdala (http://www.eqtoday.com/archive/hijack.html)

Emotions change with direction: Fear depends on where you look at it (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/17-gaze.html)

I'd definitely like to hear what Darren thinks about this.
I read through the articles. I am going to invite Mike Sneen to join this coversation...

SSR and the negative effects seem to be multiplied by factors that you perceive as difficult - or dangerous. Most of us who train alot don't see a single drunk person fighting us in a "fair" fist fight as much of a problem - it is more like "business as usual". If the situation presenting itself is something we can identify as a pattern that no longer requires the OODA cycle (but is handled at the pattern/strategy level - subconsciously) then the perception is that this is commonplace for us.

When the situation presents itself that requires an OODA solve - the perception of danger is increased - which puts the Amygdala in motion.

I think this is the basic difference to Dale's side of the discussion. The better Buj. dojos teach at a pattern / strategy level. Therefore everything falls into simple categories - and the reactions will be different each time. Because of the nature of patterns / principles / strategies -- there are thousands of variations that aren't "prethought". This allows for instinctive creativity at the time of encounter that doesn't require OODA as the creativity is still within the subconscious operating layer...

Just my thoughts - I hope they make some sense...

-Daniel

I was always taught that OODA happens in every encounter of wills. Training and/or familarity only helps shorten the cycle.

I was always taught that OODA happens in every encounter of wills. Training and/or familarity only helps shorten the cycle.Do you still think about making a fist with your thumb to the outside before you punch - or is that pattern now part of your subconscious?

More accurately - I no longer have to concentrate on getting my feet and legs to go where they want - nor "think" through finding the correct distance. Those are subconscious - and aren't part of an OODA cycle (instinctual - through training).

-Daniel

Do you still think about making a fist with your thumb to the outside before you punch - or is that pattern now part of your subconscious?

More accurately - I no longer have to concentrate on getting my feet and legs to go where they want - nor "think" through finding the correct distance. Those are subconscious - and aren't part of an OODA cycle (instinctual - through training).

-Daniel
OODA comes into effect when in direct competition with an opposing will, not individual physical decisions i.e. making a fist or moving limbs. In any "competition" you Observe the threat/oponent, Orient on the oponent, Decide on an action and Act. If you subscribe to the theory this always happens. Training helps shorten the cycle.

Something I posted on OODA a while ago...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173831&postcount=5

OODA comes into effect when in direct competition with an opposing will, not individual physical decisions i.e. making a fist or moving limbs. In any "competition" you Observe the threat/oponent, Orient on the oponent, Decide on an action and Act. If you subscribe to the theory this always happens. Training helps shorten the cycle.I would counter that training helps you Chunk -- or group -- a series of complex actions together to enable the OODA to occur at a much higher level. Because of the training - the vast majority of things that are thought through when starting are now subconscious -- e.g. body position / shape / terrain.

OODA is the factor if you are evaluating vast amounts of minute detail - instead of identifying the larger patterns that truely matter. OODA puts you behind the 8-ball if you are trying to keep up with the aggressor's every movement.

If I go back to my "making a fist" example - when you first start training - that has to be one of the steps your mind goes through to properly hold your hands. Later - "making a fist" isn't even thought about as it is handled completely subconsciously.

The same should be applicable to the agressors / situation - yes? If not - then why not?

-Daniel

I would still say that each step in OODA always occurs. The steps may happen in miliseconds, but according to Boyd always happen. I wouldnt say that self defense techniques are "reflexive". There better be some higher awareness involved or you are going to be in trouble when you kill a drunk who took a poke at you out of "reflex". Better awareness shortens Observation. Experience and training shortens the Orientation and Decision phase. (The Ive been here done that thing vs. Oh crap what the....??? thing.) And training helps you place your body in position for action quicker than the opponent expected/can handle. The "subconcsious" physical activity you describe shortens the Orientation and Action phase.

Like Boyds air combat model, if you can see the oponent first, manuver quicker, make a quicker and better decision and act, you will win. If the decision and action are "subconscious" its still a phase. How else would you describe an encounter? You have to percieve a threat (whats that?), process it somehow (whats going on?), decide what to do consciously or otherwise (what should I do?) and then do something. What else is there?

Correct me if Im wrong, but it appears you believe there is a choice or decision to use OODA or not. The process is a model for ALL "force on force" encounters.

I would still say that each step in OODA always occurs. The steps may happen in miliseconds, but according to Boyd always happen. I wouldnt say that self defense techniques are "reflexive". There better be some higher awareness involved or you are going to be in trouble when you kill a drunk who took a poke at you out of "reflex". Better awareness shortens Observation. Experience and training shortens the Orientation and Decision phase. (The Ive been here done that thing vs. Oh crap what the....??? thing.) And training helps you place your body in position for action quicker than the opponent expected/can handle. The "subconcsious" physical activity you describe shortens the Orientation and Action phase.

Like Boyds air combat model, if you can see the oponent first, manuver quicker, make a quicker and better decision and act, you will win. If the decision and action are "subconscious" its still a phase. How else would you describe an encounter? You have to percieve a threat (whats that?), process it somehow (whats going on?), decide what to do consciously or otherwise (what should I do?) and then do something. What else is there?I think we are more in agreement then disagreement. My point of contention is still on the word Decide -- as the word denotes conscious thought. I think it is closer to OOA or OA without the decide / orient.

On another note - I just realized that the scenarios I have been playing in my mind when thinking through your responses are completely defensive in nature. The evasion / off-line aspects to what we do... Moving towards "winning" - I agree completely that it has to be OODA - as you evaluate your perceptions of what is occuring...

Good discussion...

-Daniel

Correct me if Im wrong, but it appears you believe there is a choice or decision to use OODA or not. The process is a model for ALL "force on force" encounters.
I wouldn't say there is a choice / decision. I would say that the model doesn't fit all scenarios (unless you have a liberal definition of "Decide").

Yes, it has been a good discussion, I always enjoy an honest exchange of ideas.

On the decision thing...conscious or not, the brain has come to some sort of decision to respond/move the body in a particular manner yes?

Yes, it has been a good discussion, I always enjoy an honest exchange of ideas.

On the decision thing...conscious or not, the brain has come to some sort of decision to respond/move the body in a particular manner yes?Agreed. The part of the brain used to make that decision, however, may be different, yes?

I wouldn't say there is a choice / decision. I would say that the model doesn't fit all scenarios (unless you have a liberal definition of "Decide").
I think you may have a too narrow view on "decide". Like there is some sort of conscious dialog going on all the time. I dont think that Boyd believed the Decide phase was a "hmm..the guys coming at me with a right hook, should I block, evade, etc." type thing. The brain is constantly making decisions. A baseball players brain is constantly making "decisions" as he catches a ball. Speed up, slow down, left, right. The brain must decide and send commands to the body.

Agreed. The part of the brain used to make that decision, however, may be different, yes?
Absolutely, I would say that there are layers of decisions happening at different levels. The decisions to move the body are coming from a different level than the decision to; shoot-dont shoot, joint lock or eye gouge, evade and run or evade and counter are coming from. The brain is complex.

I think you may have a too narrow view on "decide". Like there is some sort of conscious dialog going on all the time. I dont think that Boyd believed the Decide phase was a "hmm..the guys coming at me with a right hook, should I block, evade, etc." type thing. The brain is constantly making decisions. A baseball players brain is constantly making "decisions" as he catches a ball. Speed up, slow down, left, right. The brain must decide and send commands to the body.
Ok. We are on the same page then.

This, however, brings up the usefullness of the pattern:

The OODA cycle is nearly debilitating when you can make the "Decide" phase a difficult decision - one that requires complex calculations. This - of course - assumes that the Observe phase is equal (which, in the Buj is not the case with kyojutsu). But that is for another debate...

Using the OODA cycle to your advantage is relatively useless if the cycle is covered in milliseconds - nearly reflexive - correct? The advantage is negated by the laws of physics (ie - you can't punch 12 times in a single second to different targets). As such - the path through your brain is rather crucial to how effective the pattern is (as a study). Agreed?

By the way - as a disclaimer - the vast majority of my views here come from many many beer talks with Mike Sneen and Jeff Perry after classes. I don't want to give the impression that these are completely my ideas - just what I took away from the discussions...

Mike was the catalyst to an epiphany / paradigm shift for me. The discussions we had were the foundation to what I now believe.

I am trying to get Mike to come out here and add his input / vantage.

-Daniel

Again, its not an issue of "decide to use OODA" .Either its a model for conflict or not. I choose to believe its an accurate model. The military and tactical circles believe it too.

I think you may be falling into the error of thought regarding OODA that Ive been seeing. OODA is a process, not a strategy or tactic. Its usefulness is in developing techniques and strategy, not for "Hmmm...I should do x to overcome his OODA process" while in combat. When in combat, the process is running just like all the process in your brain.

OODA as a tool is for the creation of effective tactics. Look at the arena of conflict you expect and using the model decide what techniques you can use to take advantage of the process.

The only thing I can add is I think you may (could be wrong) believe that Im saying this OODA stuff is something that students should be "thinking" when they enter combat. OODA is more of a tool to analyze tactics and develop techniques. This tactical stuff is more about "mindset" than it is about technique. Boyd just observed a trend in confrontations and applied it on a strategic level. Its like Musashis' statement that the "way" is the same for 10,000 a side battles as it is for one-on-one encounters (close enough). I fully agree that if a student is being told that he has to "think" OODA in a confrontation that hes being misled.

Ill use NFDD's (flash bangs) again. You have a gunman holed up with hostages who "knows" the SWAT guys are going to come eventually. He thinks "When they come in, im shooting the first guy who comes throught that door." When the door opens and the bang comes in the guy goes "what the..." Before he can reOrient on the door the entry team is in and shooting. They broke into the BG's OODA by causing him to reorient. There isnt really a conscious decision to use OODA by the SWAT team, they just used the process to gain the advantage.

I think we are more in agreement then disagreement. My point of contention is still on the word Decide -- as the word denotes conscious thought. I think it is closer to OOA or OA without the decide / orient.

I think this is the crux of the whole thing, and that we're more in agreement than not. If the "decide" part is occurring on a "pre-cognitive" level it can, perhaps, be said to effectively not exist.

Kuroda Tetsuzan teaches several classical bugei which are not associated with those of the Bujinkan. In an interview with Stanley Pranin in 1993 (http://www.dojoofthefourwinds.com/kuroda.html), he said some things which both parallel things I've heard from Hatsumi sensei and which match my own experience in our arts:

. . .A teaching called zegoku itto no koto has been transmitted in Japanese swordsmanship from olden times. When confronting an opponent, one aims for a level where the movements of his mind and body control the opponent before he swings his sword. This is the highest level of swordsmanship. It seems to be a rather abstract spiritual teaching, but that's not at all the case. It is an "invisible" technique which consists of advanced technical movements and the workings of the spirit based on these movements. All martial arts training begins with learning how to perceive this invisible element.

It may be dangerous to talk or write about things which cannot be seen with the naked eye, but we cannot understand what the bushi [samurai warriors] of earlier eras have bequeathed to us unless we recognize the fact that an inner vision capable of perceiving these unseen things is the basis of the martial arts.

Since the vision of ordinary people is only partially developed, they can only see those things which are visible to the eye. For that reason, people are completely unable to see true things. However, there are also instances when people are able to easily accomplish things that could be considered impossible as a result of knowledge acquired through training. It sounds like a matter of religion if I talk about hearing things which cannot be heard or seeing things which cannot be seen, but please understand that I am referring simply to an individual's latent knowledge.

Pranin: How was it that you arrived at this way of thinking?

Kuroda Sensei: Previously, I had my doubts that this knowledge was directly related to the martial arts, or that the practice of martial arts kata would enable one to read people's minds. However, as it is expressed in the writings of my grandfather Yasuji, training in the martial arts is learning how to achieve unity of the sword and body, that is, of techniques and mind. If we ask how to achieve this unity, this answer is through the practice of kata. Everything which the traditional bushi attempted to transmit to future generations is contained in the kata. Through kata training, first of all, our eyes become opened.

At the present time I have a fourth-grader among my students. If I control his center line (seichusen), even he is able to clearly see my slightest mental movement and he immediately reacts by withdrawing slightly backward. He hasn't been trained to concentrate his consciousness on any kind of spiritual training to see invisible things. He has simply practiced jujutsu and kenjutsu kata together with us.

Naturally, the mental and physical development of this boy is still immature. However, he is learning kata with eyes that are capable of seeing. In his practice he is conscious of what to do in the kata and how to move which part of his body in order to develop effective technique. It doesn't matter that he is a child.

This is very different from learning a kata form as merely a refined, traditional movement or learning it exactly as one is taught. Therefore, during training at my dojo I begin teaching how to understand the kata and how one should understand each individual movement. We study why the kata have become what they are, why they must be done that way, what we are hoping to achieve by doing the kata, and what will result from practicing them. Isn't that what the samurai of old were seeking and what they devoted their lives to?

In my opinion, one of the goals of our approach to training is to become able to act spontaneously and effectively without conscious thought. One of the things -- again, in my opinion -- the 5th dan test is "about" is to determine whether the candidate has any hope of being able to do this.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the test, it actually is very simple (which is not the same thing as “easy”): The candidate kneels and "empties his/her mind", while Hatsumi sensei stands behind him or her with a sword. (As of April of last year, the test may now be given by 15th-dan shidoshi, but only in Hatsumi's presence in Japan.) When Sensei feels the moment is right, he literally projects a killing intention (sakki in Japanese) as he strikes. Passing the test consists simply of not being there at the instant the sword comes down. Any internal chatter, wondering whether you're feeling it yet, listening for movement, etc. tends to create a "filter" between you and the direct experience which will cause you to fail due to the time-lag created. The only way it can be done is to move, appropriately and without conscious thought, with the intention which precedes the strike by a millisecond or so. (And before you ask: No, he does not use a steel blade. He uses a shinai or split-bamboo training sword. But the “feeling” behind the blow is exactly the same, and things like concussions and separated shoulders have been known to occur. You do not want to get hit.)

This is the point where one becomes officially accredited as an instructor and can have his/her own dojo. From the standpoint of training progress, however, it means that one is now entering the "middle level" of training. The churyaku (mid-level) kata of Gyokko ryu, for example, are largely concerned with both empty-hand and armed surprise attacks from behind and depend on this faculty (though they're often taught as responses to a fleeting movement you've picked up in your peripheral vision).

In our approach, there also is no contest/engagement of wills, though we may present an appearance which is contrary to that (part of the kyojitsu Daniel alluded to).

I think this is the crux of the whole thing, and that we're more in agreement than not. If the "decide" part is occurring on a "pre-cognitive" level it can, perhaps, be said to effectively not exist.Im no expert on Boyd, but as far as his theory goes, I dont believe a "conscious" act of decision is a pre-requisite. I would believe Boyd would say that if you have (by any measureable standard) effectively "eliminated" your decision time than that is your method of breaking into your opponents loop. How many "decisions" do you make just driving to work? How many of them would you say were "conscious" i.e. "hmm this guy is going too slow, I should pass." you just seem to "do it".

In our approach, there also is no contest/engagement of wills, though we may present an appearance which is contrary to that (part of the kyojitsu Daniel alluded to).I believe thats more of a philosophical difference than a physical one.

More Info on the topic from a much better writer than I...

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html


Decide ? The Pipeline - The Third Quarter

Practical decision-making can easily divided into two basic paths. The subconscious mind which can process hundreds of variables simultaneously, in parallel and the conscious mind which works in serial or sequentially, handling seven plus minus two variables before disregarding or misinterpreting incoming data.

Any process that must be accomplished in a compressed time frame should be relegated to the powerful subconscious mind, through training.


"If you consciously try to thwart opponents, you are already late" - Miyamoto Musashi Japanese Philosopher/Warrior - 1645

Subconscious decisions are decisions arrived upon based on what we perceive, how we orient that perception and the time allowed to make the decision. If the threat is close and the time frame compressed we will automatically default to the sub-conscious pipeline. Whatever we brought to the situation, genetics, personality, training, assumptions, tools available, will pour out of us without conscious thought or effort.

Again, its not an issue of "decide to use OODA" .Either its a model for conflict or not.Agreed - it isn't a real-time choice at engagement time -- specifically called out as an OODA decision (see the PS below).
I think you may be falling into the error of thought regarding OODA that Ive been seeing. OODA is a process, not a strategy or tactic. Its usefulness is in developing techniques and strategy... ...OODA as a tool is for the creation of effective tactics. Look at the arena of conflict you expect and using the model decide what techniques you can use to take advantage of the process.And this is where I now have contention with your vantage.

You specifically call out a logical extension of viewing the OODA process. This is what I have an issue with.

By looking at "techniques and strategy" - you have to assume one of the forementioned OODA scenarios -- so which one is it? The low level instinctual OODA or the highly complex solve OODA?

Techniques (by nature) are designed to SPECIFICALLY target the weaknesses of the human machine (both physically and psychologically). OODA describes a mental / psychological weakness in how we respond to stimuli.

From your own writing in the other thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173831&postcount=5):


This is the OODA Loop. Whoever can move through this process faster, gains the advantage over his foes by disrupting their ability to respond in a timely or effective manner.

With this understanding, we can see that an aggressive operator who initiates the action after proper observation, orientation, and
decision will have an overwhelming advantage over a reactive individual. The basic reason is that the aggressive operator's cycle
is at the end or action phase, whereas his opponent's cycle is at the beginning or middle. The aggressive operator has already oriented himself to his opponent (sometimes simply recognizing that he is an enemy is enough), and decided on a course of action based on that orientation.
Would it be fair to say there is no "overwhelming" advantage without the "Conscious Decide" - if the entire OODA cycle in the reactive individual is milliseconds long - (unless the encounter only lasts milliseconds (like a sniper))? If you are working at an almost pre-cognitive level (yes - the brain is still sending signals - so yes, it is still "deciding") techniques designed to take advantage of the weakness described by OODA have NO advantage over other techniques... That means the logical extension (which you expounded on above) to Boyd's OODA theory has no foundation.

Does that make more sense?

-Daniel

PS. Whereas you are correct in the statement about "deciding to use OODA" - you miss the nuances that are used ALL the time - on purpose - by people. Feints are thrown to start and stop the OODA cycle - timing is used to catch people on the wrong beat (and at the wrong phase of OODA) - and attacks are thrown to specifically deceive the observation of the real intended targets. Boxers are EXCELLENT with OODA techniques - and they are SPECIFICALLY trying to capitalize on the weaknesses found in the OODA cycle. So in essence - people do "decide" to use OODA when they engage each other...

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html
Read the above link...he describes it better than I can.


Recalibrating the Internal Clock

The first issue is our perception of time itself.

I often illustrate people?s perception of the time by walking to the back of the classroom and then back to the podium while elucidating some tactical point. While the class is still trying to digest the point, I then ask several students, how long did it take for me to walk to the back of the room and return to the podium? Typically I get a few turned faces, questioning looks and frowns. They are non-verbally asking me, what difference does it make how long that took?

The answers I do receive will typically range from 2 seconds to 10 seconds, a substantial variance. Some will argue that I did not give them any preparation to ready their internal stopwatch. But this misses the point. No one in a rapidly developing engagement is going to stop and remind you to calibrate your chronograph. The point is, using recall alone, the same event witnessed by trained observers is perceived to have taken place in different universes where physical reality moves at different speeds.

The other interesting thing to note is that I will never get an answer like 3.345 seconds.

Why is this so? True sometimes I get an answer of 3½ seconds, but that?s as fine a gradient ever expressed. Our everyday existence does not require a division of time any closer than seconds for most events, in terms of verbal articulation. But in the world of close quarter engagements, using only full seconds to measure time is like using a sledgehammer to fine cut a diamond.

Tremendous and significant changes can happen in one second. A proficient adversary can fire three rounds out of a semi-auto shotgun while passing by an open doorway, horizontally and vertically changing position in relation to you in under a second.

To further illustrate the calibration point in the classroom, I ask someone to stand up and I give this volunteer a ?red gun?, an inoperative hard plastic replica handgun. I tell them to put it in their waistband, and I do the same. I tell them that they are now part of a futuristic new game show that pits one man against the other in a six-foot gunfight. The participants face each other, winner to receive one million dollars. Both are wearing metallic braces on their wrist and ankles and are held in place by a strong magnetic field. Both will actually be using real, perfectly functioning firearms. When the green light is observed, you will be free to access your firearm and dispatch your opponent as required.

Now I throw a twist into the scenario. I tell the student, that he was smarter and more cunning than I and he offered ½ his winnings to the operator of the magnetic field, if he would release his magnets 1 second earlier than mine. The operator says no, because one second was too obvious and the producers would have him executed for this breach of the rules. So the negotiations continue.

How about .9 seconds? How about .8 seconds? How about .4 seconds? How about .2 seconds? The operator finally agrees to release my opponent?s magnets .125 seconds prior to mine. At this point in the discussion, I then ask the student, would you take this time advantage if given to you, even if you had to pay $100,000 for it? The answer is inevitably, in the affirmative! Any sane person would take any and all time given in a gunfight, no matter how small the increment.

We zoom back out. How important is time? How important is learning to perceive time? How important is it to re-calibrate our internal chronographs? How does one get better and more efficient at anything?

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html
Read the above link...he describes it better than I can.

[/size][/font]
I did.

Ken walks through the differences between Subconscious and Conscious thought. Any process that must be accomplished in a compressed time frame should be relegated to the powerful subconscious mind, through training.

This is what I am talking about. The extension of OODA to evaluate and create "technique[s] and strateg[ies]" is where I am disagreeing. Are you still holding to the theory that OODA can be used to evaluate techniques and strategies - or that there is an "overwhelming advantage" to the one who enters the cycle first?

-Daniel

Well, I would say both have their place. When developing a tactical plan in a SWAT situation we use diversionary devices and entry plans to take advantage of the OODA process. We develop officer safety tactics to take advantage of OODA principles. Or like in Ken's article, develop firearms techniques that dont block out the field of view......When actually in the fight we (through better training, intel., equipment and experience) hopefully out cycle the opponent. However I cant remember a single time I consciously thought "what should I do next to get inside this guys loop." Once the door was down. Techniques take advantage of the process. OODA isnt a "technique". That, obviously poorly stated, is my point. The time to "consciously use" OODA is for developing tactics. When actually fighting, OODA is "automatic".

Even that isnt "exactly" what Im trying to say, but close....

This is what I am talking about. The extension of OODA to evaluate and create "technique[s] and strateg[ies]" is where I am disagreeing. Are you still holding to the theory that OODA can be used to evaluate techniques and strategies - or that there is an "overwhelming advantage" to the one who enters the cycle first?Hey Daniel, thanks for inviting me. Awesome thread!

Perhaps I misunderstand. Why couldn't you use OODA to evaluate and create techniques and strategies? If you evaluated a technique or series, and each move or part of the move put you further behind in your ability to cycle through OODA, it seems like some other factor(s) would have to be extremely good in order for that move or series to still be evaluated as good or workable.

Too funny because the Ken Good was the one who introduced me to the OODA cycle when I worked for him at Combative Concepts. It seems like you guys are studying the same thing I have been, which is the difference between how the conscious and unconscious mind move through OODA, and how to efficiently keep them synced.

I tried to have a conversation with Ken about it on his forum awhile back, but I don't think we connected. His mind naturally works so efficiently under compressed time frames that he may have trouble imagining what it is like for some of the rest of us ( Have I mentioned I'm Polish? ).

I quit training for a few years in the late 90's, and spent the time working as a programmer. When I started training again, I found out I was 60 lbs overweight... but I digress. I initially had trouble with compressed time frames because my conscious mind was used to being in control all the time. I started researching it and found that motorcycle and car drivers in racing, and pilots often have the same problem.

Here is my 2 cents on OODA based on my reseach, and experience experimenting on myself and a few foolhardy friends.

The conscious and unconscious both run through OODA for every decision/action, but they do it differently, and Simultaneously.

The Observe phase is roughly the same.

Starting in the Orientation phase, they seem to deviate.
The conscious mind analyzes the situation while the unconscious tries to match it with previous observation of similar patterns. If it can't, it hands it up with a panicked "sorry!".

As they go into the "Decide" phase, the conscious mind uses memory, logic, and trial and error testing, often working through numerous bad solutions before finding a workable one.

The subconscious mind seems to works a bit differently. It seems to work on a template based system. During training, or even offline visualization, the conscious mind processes training material and decides which skills to learn and how to perform them. Through repetition, the conscious mind loads these skills into "templates".

The decide stage for the subconscious mind is simply picking which template(s) to use. The subconscious mind is much faster and can take environmental input from the five senses and match it directly with its library of templates.

This process is extremely efficient and requires no effort compared to conscious processing. When the unconscious mind processes input that it can't match to a template, it calls for help from the conscious mind. Done efficiently, the conscious mind would jump in and solve the problem, then turn control back over to the subconscious mind.

Then, either way, an Action is taken and the whole thing starts over.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

Originally Posted by Tgace
...

With this understanding, we can see that an aggressive operator who initiates the action after proper observation, orientation, and
decision will have an overwhelming advantage over a reactive individual. The basic reason is that the aggressive operator's cycle
is at the end or action phase, whereas his opponent's cycle is at the beginning or middle. The aggressive operator has already oriented himself to his opponent (sometimes simply recognizing that he is an enemy is enough), and decided on a course of action based on that orientation.
Would you object if I suggested that the aggressive operator only gains an advantage in this scenario if the distance and/or speed of attack are so close or fast that the reactive individual does not have time to cycle through OODA? Many speed based firearm disarms effectively take advantage of this scenario, when the weapon is within easy reach, but as distance increases, it leaves too much time for the reactive individual to cycle through OODA and shoot him. Obviously, when at that "grey area" of speed or distance, cycle time i.e. training time, matters a great deal.

Regards,

Mike Sneen
Nasza Rzecz - Polish Martial Art :)

Sounds logical to me..... ;)

Hey Daniel, thanks for inviting me. Awesome thread!

Perhaps I misunderstand. Why couldn't you use OODA to evaluate and create techniques and strategies? If you evaluated a technique or series, and each move or part of the move put you further behind in your ability to cycle through OODA, it seems like some other factor(s) would have to be extremely good in order for that move or series to still be evaluated as good or workable.

Regards,

Mike SneenGreat question (and good post, BTW):

Since there is a significant variance in the subconscious OODA loop and the conscious (congnitive) OODA loop. The subconscious OODA loop negates any advantage that the "OODA-approved" techniques / strategies use. In other words - the OODA loop isn't a constant - it is a variable that depends on a number of factors (experience (or number of templates) at the opponents disposal being one, for example).

To use the Tgace's example from earlier - the flashbang before entry. What if the BG had on ear protection and sunglasses - effectively negating the effects of the flashbang. Instead of catching the BG in a "what the hell ???" OODA loop - he calmly watches the flashbang thrown into the room - closes his eye for a second while it goes off - then centers his two machine guns on the door and kills everyone who rushes through it.

In other words - evaluation of a strategy / technique has to have the opponents experience built into it.

A jab feint / left cross combo that works on "Untrained Joe" won't work on a professional boxer, for example. But a jab feint - left cross should be effective when viewed through the OODA process. The feint thrown at "Untrained Joe" captures his mind and body completely - and the cross is devastating. What do you think the results would be against Oscar De LaHoya (he has that template down pat)? The OODA cycle (done in the subconscious mind) has virtually no effect on Oscar.

Does that clear things up?

-Daniel

The conscious and unconscious both run through OODA for every decision/action, but they do it differently, and Simultaneously.

The Observe phase is roughly the same.

Regards,

Mike SneenHm - in re-reading this i have another disagreement.

What is being observed depends on your experience. Whereas a newer person may concentrate on a set of features (or watch the eyes) - a more experienced person observes a completely different set of features (by chunking / templates).

Agreed - or?

-Daniel

None of this negates the OODA process, just causes a recycle and the necessity to re-enter the opponents process.

Thats the name of the game, sometimes the BG is wearing earplgs. You never "depend" on the flashbang to work 100%, its just another tool. When it works it works by disrupting the BG's OODA process. When it dosent work you use other tools. Thats why we enter an a specific way, to avoid the funnel. Thats why we may use multiple entry points...maybe the BG is a trained fighter. Sometimes the BG wins because he was faster in the loop. Dosent make the process "useless". It dosent mean OODA isnt taking place. Or using it as a planning tool is useless. Theres nothing wrong with, and everything to gain with understanding the "process" of the confronatation. We can pick away at variables all day.

At the base of it you have to percieve the threat (ill include orient with that broad statement), the brain (subconsciously or otherwise) selects an action and you do something. Unless Im missing something thats the "nuts and bolts" of it. And thats OODA.

Cops, soldiers etc. all do after action reviews (AAR's) to see what went right and what went wrong and work out better ways to deal with conflict. If they all said "well its all a crap shoot because we never know what the other guy has, knows or is prepared for." There would never be any advancements in the tactical craft. Heck..ambush is close to the ultimate OODA break-in, you have gone through the whole cycle before the other guy has even Observed you, unless the BG spots the ambush first in which case you better start shooting while you have any advantage. If he counter ambushes first the game goes on.......hope you remembered that flank security and Claymores.

Hm - in re-reading this i have another disagreement.

What is being observed depends on your experience. Whereas a newer person may concentrate on a set of features (or watch the eyes) - a more experienced person observes a completely different set of features (by chunking / templates).

Agreed - or?

-DanielAgreed - I was parring down what I was writing to try to make it less boring.

Even further, In my case, my conscious mind tends to have my eyes focus on specific things, whereas my unconscious tends to use unfocused peripheral vision more.

I think the action phase is different too, having to do with chunk theory. It seems to me that it is the unconscious that controls or "maintains" the "chunks" of learned skills, and the conscious that gets overloaded by trying to work with more than 7 +- 2 chunks at a time. The unconscious either matches a pattern or it doesn't. From what I can tell there is no overload other than the big "sorry![don't have a template for this one]"

And yes, I do see your point in the other post that OODA can be so relative that it is hard to use it as a factor to evaluate techniqe and strategy. I have to agree with you now but let me think about it, because it seems to me that almost every good technique or strategy I can think of(about 2 as I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet) attacks the other person's OODA cycle in some way.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

None of this negates the OODA process, just causes a recycle and the necessity to re-enter the opponents process.
...

It dosent mean OODA isnt taking place. Or using it as a planning tool is useless. Theres nothing wrong with, and everything to gain with understanding the "process" of the confronatation. We can pick away at variables all day.


I agree. As far as I can tell OODA is always happening in everyone any time they are moving.

Let me try this angle. OODA is always happening, so in using it to evaluate technique or strategy, part of the the evaluation should be:
Did you leave yourself in a bad position at the end of any cycle? In our "getting ahead in the cycle" example from previous posts, it would be good to be acting before he starts his cycle, as long as you leave yourself in good position.

Hmmm, Interesting. James Williams explained the "Gain" pattern to me a couple years ago, which in part explains the "fight" lifecycle. I think it might be Boyd's as well because James initially used a dogfighting scenario to explain it.

As you go through any type of fight, whether team gunfight or individual h2h, on every movement there is (preferably in your favor) some type of Gain is happening. This can be a strike or bullet actually hitting, or it can be a timing or positioning gain that won't really manifest itself for several moves.

Usually the gain is made or lost on each "beat", but I'm thinking that if you look down another level, it is made or lost in the OODA loops that are happening within each "beat".

Feel free to beat me up on that one because I just made it up and haven't thought it through.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

Even further, In my case, my conscious mind tends to have my eyes focus on specific things, whereas my unconscious tends to use unfocused peripheral vision more.

I'd agree with that, and see it as an important key to that "working with the shape of the space" thing I referred to earlier. I explicitly and constantly hammer on the need to use peripheral rather than focused vision in close combat to my students. Peripheral vision picks up on movement more quickly and is also more "holistic" -- seems to be connected more with right brain hemisphere recognition of pattern, shape, context, spatial relationships. Besides, it's also good training for that inevitable time when your eyes start getting presbyopic and you don't see as distinctly close-up. :wink2:

I think the action phase is different too, having to do with chunk theory. It seems to me that it is the unconscious that controls or "maintains" the "chunks" of learned skills, and the conscious that gets overloaded by trying to work with more than 7 +- 2 chunks at a time. The unconscious either matches a pattern or it doesn't. From what I can tell there is no overload other than the big "sorry![don't have a template for this one]"

Looks to me like we're all on the same page on this one.

. . .it seems to me that almost every good technique or strategy I can think of (about 2 as I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet) attacks the other person's OODA cycle in some way.

I can't think of anything in our budo that is not designed to do so. Doing it at the "pre-engagement" level (as distinct from things you'd do to regain initiative) has been a major element of Hatsumi sensei's training themes for the past two years: It may appear to an untrained observer (and to your opponent himself) that he is initiating an attack, but he's really not. This appears to be the same thing Kuroda sensei was referring to in the Aikido Journal interview when he mentioned zegoku itto no koto: "When confronting an opponent, one aims for a level where the movements of his mind and body control the opponent before he swings his sword."

Doing it at the "pre-engagement" level (as distinct from things you'd do to regain initiative) has been a major element of Hatsumi sensei's training themes for the past two years: ...

The team tactics that I learned with the guys Combative Concepts work the same way. Many of the basic skills and techniques are how to win while in the fight, but most of the advanced stuff is about taking major "gain" before the engagement by subverting the opposition's OODA cycles.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

I talked to Daniel Weidman on the phone for almost 2 hours on Friday about this subject. Unfortunately, We got a little far out ahead of this thread, but I'll try to stay with the logical progression of the current discussion.

There is a difference between how conscious and unconscious OODA
cycles work in the mind.

In compressed time frames, pushing someone into a conscious OODA
cycle is awesome, and having someone push you into a conscious OODA
cycle sucks!

If you are using OODA cycles to evaluate techniques or strategies,
you should make sure that the timeframes are compressed enough that
your evaluation critera is unconscious OODA. If a relatively
untrained person tests a "move" against a few other untrained people,
and can easily get inside their conscious OODA cycles, he may be
really unpleasantly surprised to run up against someone who is
capable of unconscious OODA cycles against that move.

One of the things we both noticed is that advanced fighters perform multiple OODA loops per beat, which are used to refine their response as they observe variations in the attack. Relative beginners often perform 1 OODA loop per beat (or less), which results in a single action. Their OODA loops aren't yet fast enough to make the little adjustments midbeat.

Sorry if I'm boring any or all of you. I'm writing a chapter on this in my Team Tactics book, and I'm using you as a sounding board since you've had such a good discussion going on the subject.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

Would it be propper to say that OODA is a different animal when looking at the close quarters, extremely rapid pace of a H2H fight when compared to say military operations, SWAT planning, and even air combat? Like my SWAT example, you can look at the use of equipment anf tactics as methods of entering the opponents OODA cycle. But thats a different application of the process from how say a boxer manipulates OODA with feints, combinations etc.

Similiar to how basic military tactics can be applied from the level of doctrine all the way down to individual soldier skills.

Would it be propper to say that OODA is a different animal when looking at the close quarters, extremely rapid pace of a H2H fight when compared to say military operations, SWAT planning, and even air combat? Like my SWAT example, you can look at the use of equipment anf tactics as methods of entering the opponents OODA cycle. But thats a different application of the process from how say a boxer manipulates OODA with feints, combinations etc.

Similiar to how basic military tactics can be applied from the level of doctrine all the way down to individual soldier skills.

I think so. In boxing or h2h, you would almost always have to evaluate your technique or strategy against the unconscious OODA cycle in compressed time frames.

On the other extreme, in Naval warefare with large ships, and possibly in Tank warefare, it seems likely that most of the OODA cycles can be conscious and still fast enough, because big ships and tanks just don't move that fast ( I know, newer tanks are pretty fast. I was just on Pendleton a few weeks ago with a tank crew ).

In SWAT or Air Combat, you are going to have a mix. Some of your techniques and strategies are long range enough that they only need to beat the conscious OODA of your aggressor. Others are up "inside" and are running in compressed time frames, and therefore need to be able to beat or act upon the unconscious OODA.

This creates the hardest environment for the team, because it is easy to think you are in a situation where you and the aggressor(s) are all running in conscious OODA, and you find out the aggressor has managed to "up the speed" and you need to be able to process in unconscious OODA.

Back when I was training teams, one of the things we noticed was that many of the teams were running in conscious OODA, in situations when they should have been running in unconscious OODA.

I remember a Marine team we trained in CQB in the early 90's. We were doing force on force training. All of them had radios, and when then encountered aggressors, they tried to get on the radio and communicate to their team leader, which held them in conscious OODA, processing the wrong loops. They ultimately learned that they needed to be in unconscious OODA and handle the attack first, then when they were somewhat safe, communicate and call in a flanking attack from a different room.

I was just watching discovery channel last night. They had the "camera sighted rifie" for looking around corners in CQB. Unfortunately, One of the problems with it is that it places the user in conscious OODA, whereas an aggressor in unconscious OODA could easily defeat it by rapidly attacking and getting inside the user's conscious OODA.

Now, if the camera sighted rifle user had good teammates, they would be creating safe shadow for him, and pick up the attack while in unconscious OODA themselves, but if they were capable of that, they probably wouldn't have been all that interested in using the camera sighted rifle in the first place.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts. They really make me think. If you think I am off base on any of my ideas, I hope you will say so.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

I remember a Marine team we trained in CQB in the early 90's. We were doing force on force training. All of them had radios, and when then encountered aggressors, they tried to get on the radio and communicate to their team leader, which held them in conscious OODA, processing the wrong loops. They ultimately learned that they needed to be in unconscious OODA and handle the attack first, then when they were somewhat safe, communicate and call in a flanking attack from a different room.Part of that is the exact reason why on my team only one person (the entry leader) makes communication contact with the command post. When actually in a "CQB" environment, just plain yelling between the operators is far more effective.

Part of that is the exact reason why on my team only one person (the entry leader) makes communication contact with the command post. When actually in a "CQB" environment, just plain yelling between the operators is far more effective.

Agreed! I would bet money your guys are reading each other's body language rather than talking whenever they can see each other.

Language seems to use the conscious mind, and pushes you into conscious OODA cycles, whereas reading body language of your teammates can communicate a large amount of information at the unconscious level, hence unconscious OODA cycles to interpret it and almost no cycles at all to send it.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

What I like about the OODA concept is that it "goes back" to basic principles. There is a tendency to go into "overdevelopment" within tactical circles. Pedantic overthink resulting in communicating every little bit of information over radios, complicated formations and entry plans, pages upon pages of SOP (should be "Simple Operating Procedure" IMHO) etc. and overdependency on technology and gadgets instead of just looking at them as tools. OODA fits in nicely with the KISS concept, anything too complicated is going to extend your cycle.