Do self defense programs work?

I have never seen anywhere any evidence that there is any correlation between "self defense" training and one's odds of being victimized. I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that the "rest of the stuff that keeps us safe" is simple to learn and does have a material impact on one's odds of being victimized. Said simply, just telling me that street ninjutsu is better than tae bo for self defense doesn't make it so.
There's a reasonable argument that fighting ability improves the chances of coming out better if someone is attacked. Given the sheer number of variables involved, I can't imagine how we'd ever get data to support or refute that.

Whether self-defense training does so will depend largely on whether it's actually teaching fighting ability.
 
There's a reasonable argument that fighting ability improves the chances of coming out better if someone is attacked. Given the sheer number of variables involved, I can't imagine how we'd ever get data to support or refute that.
I think your last sentence effectively neutralizes your first sentence. I think there are physical skills that can help, but it really depends. Simply put, I would agree that physical training of some kind can help, and if the situation plays to your strengths, great. But I'm unconvinced that "self defense" training is more effective than other, non martial training (e.g., CrossFit or Parkour or even Tae Bo). Maybe, if the chips fall just right, but statistically, it just doesn't play out.
Whether self-defense training does so will depend largely on whether it's actually teaching fighting ability.
And you don't get a beginner attacker who attacks you incorrectly.
 
The idea that having more options makes it harder to choose one is an over-generalization from a very specific piece of cognitive research. There's no evidence I know of to support it for a well-trained set of skills.

I also know of no evidence that suggests training a skill over a longer period leaves one with no better chance of being able to use it than training it 30 hours once, some time ago.
that's not really what I said, I said that in a stressful situation there is no evidence that a well practiced skill wont desert you as easily as it will someone who hasnt trained for anywhere near as loNg, unless of course you have some to share ? equally the less practised person may cope with stress better and out perform the expert,
 
As I said, they exist. I think they're in the minority.
to be clear, whether they are in the minority or not, I'm not one of them, and consider any suggestion otherwise to be personally offensive. I do not appreciate being mischaracterized in this way, if that is what Tez3 is suggesting.
 
that's not really what I said, I said that in a stressful situation there is no evidence that a well practiced skill wont desert you as easily as it will someone who hasnt trained for anywhere near as loNg, unless of course you have some to share ?
in the training field this is referred to as transfer of learning. Relies a lot on developing genuine expertise, which is why I harp on application a lot. If you are waiting for genuine danger to apply a technique, your chance of success is pretty low
 
in the training field this is referred to as transfer of learning. Relies a lot on developing genuine expertise, which is why I harp on application a lot. If you are waiting for genuine danger to apply a technique, your chance of success is pretty low
I don't think I said anything that fits that response, fighting can be extremely simple, in fact it's best if it is. the more complex a technique the more likely us us to go wrong, genuine danger us just a state of mind, I've seen people more or less paralyse d from the prospect of public speaking which has no genuine danger at all, just as I've seen people scale rock faces with no fear at all
 
I don't think I said anything that fits that response, fighting can be extremely simple, in fact it's best if it is. the more complex a technique the more likely us us to go wrong, genuine danger us just a state of mind, I've seen people more or less paralyse d from the prospect of public speaking which has no genuine danger at all, just as I've seen people scale rock faces with no fear at all
Sure but folks who have developed public speaking skills in smaller venues and have learned how to structure a speech and are prepared are much better able to speak in public than someone who wings it.
 
Sure but folks who have developed public speaking skills in smaller venues and have learned how to structure a speech and are prepared are much better able to speak in public than someone who wings it.
and some people are born performers who have no Sense of danger to over come. others can spend a long time practising and never be anything but slightly less scared and dull.

but the point I'm making is a high level of stress and genuine danger are not synonyms
 
Last edited:
As I said, they exist. I think they're in the minority.

They aren't unfortunately, you may think so because you don't think that way and assume others being reasonable people don't either. I can assure you, think women are responsible for their own assaults and rapes is far more common than reasonable people think.

Nearly half of young British men 'think drunk women are to blame' if they are sexually assaulted

One in 12 say rape victims to blame if they are drunk or flirtatious

and this disgusts me. BBC News - Women say some rape victims should take blame - survey
 
I have never seen anywhere any evidence that there is any correlation between "self defense" training and one's odds of being victimized. I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that the "rest of the stuff that keeps us safe" is simple to learn and does have a material impact on one's odds of being victimized. Said simply, just telling me that street ninjutsu is better than tae bo for self defense doesn't make it so.

Yes but there is a fairly logical argument that if I get in to a fight. And I can fight. I will have a better chance in that fight.

And we can certainly see examples of people winning fights.

But otherwise yeah it is interesting there is no evidence either way.
 
Same argument.

If guys were not duchebag they wouldn't get bashed. Is like if women dresses more conservatively they wouldn't get raped.
Or said the other way, if you want to be a d-bag and don't want to be punched in the face, you may need to prepare differently than if you choose not to be a d-bag. If you check the weather in the mountain passes, and see that a blizzard is coming through, you have choices.
 
Or said the other way, if you want to be a d-bag and don't want to be punched in the face, you may need to prepare differently than if you choose not to be a d-bag. If you check the weather in the mountain passes, and see that a blizzard is coming through, you have choices.

Or just don't be a duchebag when you walk though the mountains.
 
Yes but there is a fairly logical argument that if I get in to a fight. And I can fight. I will have a better chance in that fight.

And we can certainly see examples of people winning fights.
totally reasonable. The question then, is what are your chances of getting into a fight? And to be clear, this is a little different for you than for me. You're an Australian, which just automatically means you're more likely to get into a fight than me. As an Australian, your accent is annoying, which puts people on edge. But even beyond that, you are (or were) involved in bouncing. Me? I'm a lovable guy who doesn't really hang out in bars, drink to excess, etc. My chances of getting into a fight are exceedingly low.

So, if we're talking bang for buck, learning to fight is a "nice to have" not a "need to have." Might be different for someone else.
 
theres also a " scientific " thing, that the more people are present the less likely anyone of them is going to help you. theres a herd thing going on where every waits for some one else to intervene. where if it's only you !
I haven’t seen anything scientifically looking at that, but it makes sense. More people look at each other like who’s going to help. And they’re all probably assuming everyone else isn’t helping out for a reason, like there’s some danger that they’re not personally seeing.

There’s a lot of odd sociological things that happen when groups get larger. People do weird stuff they’d never do without the rest of the pack.

One of my favorites is people waiting for stuff like tolls and parking garage exits. Somehow, people instinctually go to lanes where there are other cars rather than looking for the shortest lines. Every time I’m at a toll plaza I laugh about it. I think they think the lanes without anyone in them yet have the green light is on is closed or something. Same thing when I go to the car wash, leaving the parking lot at the airport, stuff like that. I guess people like waiting in line in their cars or something, because they don’t typically do the same thing at grocery stores and the like.
 
I haven’t seen anything scientifically looking at that, but it makes sense. More people look at each other like who’s going to help. And they’re all probably assuming everyone else isn’t helping out for a reason, like there’s some danger that they’re not personally seeing.
There's a whole portion of social psychology focused around this, that I think Jobo is referring to. Look up the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility if you want more info on it.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top