Steve
Mostly Harmless
hoping tez would.I do support it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hoping tez would.I do support it.
That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.
The simple point I’m trying to make is that safety is objectively measurable, but being able to fight (while fun) isn’t universally helpful. Meaning, we have crime statistics that break out by all manner of various factors, so we can see that some behaviors and circumstances result in higher risk of violence.Agree. A fact of life that is more avoidable for some than others just by where they live, among other factors.
All this falls under the guise of common sense. Again, sadly something that some people are lacking more than others. But I feel you are off topic with what the OP is searching for (generous speculation here). Until I have a reason not to, I am going to give her the benefit of a doubt and assume she have at least average common sense and is wish enough to avoid at least the gross extremes of situations like you mentioned. I heard her asking "what is the best way to learn how to physically protect myself"? A good MA program should help with the self realization and thinking better in stressful environments.The choice is, do I continue to do this thing or not? If you choose to drink to excess publicly, alone, learning to fight might help mitigate the risk. However, you could choose not to drink to excess, or just have a buddy. Or drink to excess at home. There are many very effective ways to mitigate the personal risk, and only one of those might benefit from fighting skill. This kind of evaluation could be applied to any situation. Some will lend themselves to learning to fight. Some, many if you’re an average person, will be effectively overcome by making some simple changes.
Our GM was talking about forms tonight. He made a very good point that they are just a tool to help us get better, physically and mentally. But they only work if you apply them correctly. Sure, they will help anyone get more physically fit. But they are an excellent mental acquity tool.
That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.
Number one reason people stated why they didn’t help - they were in a hurry and didn’t have time to get involved. They were either on their way to work, school, get the kids, etc. And different groups of people didn’t matter - religious, young, old, good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, etc.; the stats of people who helped vs people who didn’t were about the same regardless of the group and the location. There was a show called What Would You Do or something like that on MSNBC or the like that was pretty similar to the scientific studies. Different scenarios, all people who needed help and most people kept walking rather than helping. And they were asked why they did or didn’t help. Most who didn’t were too busy and didn’t have the time, yet they somehow had time to talk to the interviewer around the corner. Funny how that works, I guess getting on TV is important enough.
IMO people are also less likely to get involved in male vs female nowadays because of how domestic violence people react. Often enough, the victim becomes the aggressor to the person who tries to help. It’s that twisted “don’t touch my man” mentality even though they’re getting beat up. I’ve seen it several times.
It’s a real F’ed up world out there. And it seems like it’s just getting worse.
Great video. Wonderful to see people willing to help someone in need.
I have seen one guy tried to drag a girl into his car in the street of Honolulu, Hawaii. That girl was screaming for help. People on the street just watched. Nobody was willing to stop that guy.
The homeless man with the shopping cart probably didn’t have anything he was running late for.
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 !That’s been studied scientifically a bit. Different distress scenarios, but every time it was clearly a person in need of help.
Number one reason people stated why they didn’t help - they were in a hurry and didn’t have time to get involved. They were either on their way to work, school, get the kids, etc. And different groups of people didn’t matter - religious, young, old, good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, etc.; the stats of people who helped vs people who didn’t were about the same regardless of the group and the location. There was a show called What Would You Do or something like that on MSNBC or the like that was pretty similar to the scientific studies. Different scenarios, all people who needed help and most people kept walking rather than helping. And they were asked why they did or didn’t help. Most who didn’t were too busy and didn’t have the time, yet they somehow had time to talk to the interviewer around the corner. Funny how that works, I guess getting on TV is important enough.
IMO people are also less likely to get involved in male vs female nowadays because of how domestic violence people react. Often enough, the victim becomes the aggressor to the person who tries to help. It’s that twisted “don’t touch my man” mentality even though they’re getting beat up. I’ve seen it several times.
It’s a real F’ed up world out there. And it seems like it’s just getting worse.
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.as a group we naturally think that dedicating a bif chunk of your life to ma, is both benifical and necessary, coz that what we do. but actually supporting that with some data about real world situations and you come back with a few anecdotes. theres is no guarantee that in a stressful situation that your going to have greater proficiency at a technique that some one who has done it for 30 hours. non at all. rather your faced with choosing one technique iut of dozens of variations, whilst they will only have one, so theres no decision process to delay things.
all over the world non ma defend themselves adequately every day, it's clear that doing so then doesn't necessarily requires thousands or even hundreds of hours of training
What has women's dress to do with what Steve said?And women shouldn't dress provocatively?
Either way a lot of violence is predatory. It doesn't really matter if the guy is a duchebag or not.
Do you really think saying, "Don't do that" will change much for the folks who think that it's okay? In some cultures, there may be real benefit from changing the culture, but not in all cases is that a factor.Women have been raped and sexually assaulted throughout history, despite wearing corsets, layers of petticoats and other garments. They were also not allowed out on their own or to go out drinking they were still raped. Instead of telling women how not to be sexually assaulted how about we teach boys how not to rape and assault when they get older.
Alesha MacPhail trial: Boy, 16, found guilty of rape and murder of six-year-old in Scotland
Yeah. It's called the paradox of choice and really refers to happiness and anxiety. It's not about inability to choose.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.
Do you really think saying, "Don't do that" will change much for the folks who think that it's okay? In some cultures, there may be real benefit from changing the culture, but not in all cases is that a factor.
What has women's dress to do with what Steve said?
Agreed. It's why I consciously try to keep a divide between the topics of self-defense (physical skills for surviving an attack) and self-protection (the rest of the stuff that keeps us safe from harm...or arguably the larger topic that also includes self-defense). I don't think much durable self-defense can be had in a short workshop. Some durable self-protection can be had.Yeah. It's called the paradox of choice and really refers to happiness and anxiety. It's not about inability to choose.
As to whether a skill takes 1, 10, or 1000 hours to master, that really depends.
My point is that skill development aside, personal safety is about mitigating risk.
Fair enough, but I don't think folks are saying "If you do this, it's your fault." They're saying, "If you make this choice, you can reduce the risk." It's like walking down an alley in a place I don't know. If I make that choice (which I ought to be able to make), it's not my fault if I get attacked. But I know that there's somewhat more risk in a random alley than a random busy street. So I make the choice that reduces my risk, since I can't control what stupidity others might wish to impose.My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.
I don't think most folks imply such things when they give a list of things a woman (or anyone else) can do to reduce risk. Probably some do, but I think those folks are in a minority these days (and possibly were not at times in the past).Fairly oblivious actually, it's the list of things that 'women do that make them responsible for their being assaulted', DB was adding the bit Steve missed off.
I don't think most folks imply such things when they give a list of things a woman (or anyone else) can do to reduce risk. Probably some do, but I think those folks are in a minority these days (and possibly were not at times in the past).
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.Agreed. It's why I consciously try to keep a divide between the topics of self-defense (physical skills for surviving an attack) and self-protection (the rest of the stuff that keeps us safe from harm...or arguably the larger topic that also includes self-defense). I don't think much durable self-defense can be had in a short workshop. Some durable self-protection can be had.
I actually referenced a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine about a program offered on college campuses in Canada that was created by and for women with the specific intent of reducing their likelihood of being victims. If you have issues with them, their approach, or their results, I think you're being completely unreasonable. I mean, bless your heart, Tez3, you literally cannot tell your allies from your enemies.My post was about those who tell women 'not to' do various things because it's considered it leads to their rapes, when in fact it should be made clear that women aren't to blame, the rapists are.
Fairly oblivious actually, it's the list of things that 'women do that make them responsible for their being assaulted', DB was adding the bit Steve missed off.