Method or Motive/Mindset

[MJS]

While surfing a forum that I haven't visited in quite some time, I came across this thread, thought it was pretty interesting, so I thought I'd post here for discussion. The question was as follows:

What is more crucial to the outcome of a violent situation... the method of the attack or the motive/mindset of the attacker?

 

[kaizasosei]

both are important. But on a really basic level i think are the same in that method is mindset or tantamount to it. Like before there is any language.
That is some scary stuff to look out for, for sure. Service with a smile.



j

 

[Deaf Smith]

While surfing a forum that I haven't visited in quite some time, I came across this thread, thought it was pretty interesting, so I thought I'd post here for discussion. The question was as follows:

What is more crucial to the outcome of a violent situation... the method of the attack or the motive/mindset of the attacker?

MJS,

If the method of the attack is overwhelming, say car bomb at 10 yards, well then the method really does it all and mindset has no real chance to play.

But if the attack is more along a line that can possibly be defeated, then the mindset becomes much more important.

Another example:

The Japanese were famous (or infamous) for banzai attacks in WW2 where they charged enemy lines in waves, all the time screaming and waving swords, bayonets, and guns. They felt their indomitable will was superior and would win the day.

This worked well with poorly armed Chinese troops, but when faced with American GIs and automatic weapons it ended badly for the Japanese.

See, things like the BAR are very unforgiving weapons. You can have a powerful will, an excellent mindset and the purest of motives, but the BAR cares not one wit for all that. And the Japanese did not have a weapon to counter such firepower at the time.

So as long as the weapons/methods leave a possibility of successful defense (or offense) then the mindset and will can be a serious factor. Just make sure you don’t run into a vastly more effective weapon.

Deaf

 

[Hand Sword]

While surfing a forum that I haven't visited in quite some time, I came across this thread, thought it was pretty interesting, so I thought I'd post here for discussion. The question was as follows:

What is more crucial to the outcome of a violent situation... the method of the attack or the motive/mindset of the attacker?

From my view and experience, the mind set is the most crucial. First, "normal" people will not "go there" mentally to do some awful things to another as "deviants" do. In to do that, one must overcome that mental hesitation. It takes a hell of a lot to walk up and say, punch someone in the face "just 'cause," let alone shoot or stab. After that, it's important to stay in that mindset or determination. Again, difficult. Think of the innocents shot by accident, or at point blank range a miss of all major organs etc.. That's loss of focus, which controls the nerves, reflexes, etc.. It's all in the mind in my opinion.
Funny enough, new studies about deviance and mind/social/environment show this is a factor too.

 

[seasoned]

While surfing a forum that I haven't visited in quite some time, I came across this thread, thought it was pretty interesting, so I thought I'd post here for discussion. The question was as follows:

What is more crucial to the outcome of a violent situation... the method of the attack or the motive/mindset of the attacker?

Motive/ Mindset all the way. There is that old saying, "where there is a will, there is a way", comes to mind. Anybody can have a method, but it is that Motive/Mindset, of the attacker, that could get you killed. Last night while perusing MT, I was also watching some Rocky Marciano boxing matches. All the commentators talked about, was how unorthodox and unpredictable he was. That equals (method) of which, was not planed on his part, because they also said how clumsy he was. The thing that stood out the most was his determination to destroy whoever was in the ring with him. Motive/Mindset.

 

[seasoned]

From my view and experience, the mind set is the most crucial. First, "normal" people will not "go there" mentally to do some awful things to another as "deviants" do. In to do that, one must overcome that mental hesitation. It takes a hell of a lot to walk up and say, punch someone in the face "just 'cause," let alone shoot or stab. After that, it's important to stay in that mindset or determination. Again, difficult. Think of the innocents shot by accident, or at point blank range a miss of all major organs etc.. That's loss of focus, which controls the nerves, reflexes, etc.. It's all in the mind in my opinion.
Funny enough, new studies about deviance and mind/social/environment show this is a factor too.

By the time I put my thoughts together and posted, I saw that you had already captured my "mind/set", pertaining to the thread.

Nice post.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Mindset.

Once (in college) I was sparring with my JJ sensei. We both wore 12 oz gloves and were sparring medium contact. He told me several times that I had to be more aggressive for the way we were sparring. At one point he gave me a right straight punch to the head, the moment I stepped in to do the same and I was almost KOed because the hit came in much harder than he had anticipated due to not getting a chance to pull his punch.

When we resumed the fight, I just looked at him blankly, and then proceeded to chase him down the mat, going through his defenses like through a wet paper bag.

I am fairly certain that I did not get a magical matrix-style technical upgrade on the spot. What changed was my mindset. At that moment it was almost as if all conscious thought had been knocked out of my head. All fears and doubts, calculations and hesitations were gone, and the difference was staggering.

 

[Carol]

Method is important. I started FMA training when I realized how easy it was for a significantly larger guy to overwhelm me, even with my (albeit rudimentary) training. Weapons are great equalizers.

But then again, I wouldn't have been able to capitalize on those methods if I didn't have the mindset....chicken....egg....egg....chicken....hmmm...I'll have to think some more about this

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

The basis for all Japanese martial arts is methods for training intent and mindset. Without it, there is no art, there are no techniques, there is no method. It is what gives the techniques their life, and the only way they can actually work. I'll give an example from my class tonight.

I was teaching a technique which involves both partners starting in a standing grappling position (essentially the same as a standard Judo-grip, refered to as Kumi Uchi in our traditions). The defender (Tori) steps back, pulling Uke off balance, then steps back in towards Uke to apply an elbow-lifting shoulder lock (musha dori/gyoja dori). This lock is then used to take Uke down and pin. Simple. However....

Although I had already pointed out that the reason you stepped back was to pull Uke off balance (create an opening), and the reason you step forward is that Uke would naturally respond to being pulled by resisting back, a number of students were simply stepping back and waiting (no pressure), then stepping forward again (again no pressure) and "searching" for the lock. So I showed them the intention behind the movements.

I told then that this technique came from the Takagi Yoshin Ryu, a school I refer to as "the art of no hesitation", so there really couldn't be any hesitation at all. What needed to be understood, though, was the intention of both Uke and Tori. Uke wants to control Tori, and dump him to the ground as hard as possible. Tori wants to create the opportunity to dump Uke to the ground as hard as possible as well, though. And that gives us the sequence.

Uke and Tori come to grips (intention for both is to take advantage of any opportunity to dump the other guy hard). Tori decides to create an opportunity by pulling Uke off balance (to highlight this, I had my Uke not resist, and the pull simply continued into a throw and pin). Uke resists, by stepping back and pulling Tori back again (to demonstrate this, the pull back by Uke was continued into another throw and pin). This committed pulling action is then intercepted by the musha dori lock, preventing a counter-throw.

Suddenly the kata appeared! The technique was there once the intention was brought into it, without it, it was just stepping and moving. I just hope they saw that.

In a real situation, this real intent is necessary, mainly because it's a guaranteed certainty that your would-be attacker will have it! And if you train without it, you've really missed the point, no matter how many methods/techniques you can do.

 

[KenpoTex]

Heinlein once wrote "There are no dangerous weapons; only dangerous men." Substitute "method" for "weapon" and I think the concept still caries through. Or, as a member on another forum once said: "I am the weapon, everything else is an accessory."
I think mindset is the crucial factor in combat. It doesn't matter how "deadly" your material is if you don't have the will to execute it decisively.

How many times to we hear stories where a criminal was beaten, even when he had the apparent advantage, because he wasn't really prepared to "go all the way?" Conversely, how many times do we hear about someone being victimized because they couldn't "flip the switch" when it counted?

 

[seasoned]

Heinlein once wrote "There are no dangerous weapons; only dangerous men." Substitute "method" for "weapon" and I think the concept still caries through. Or, as a member on another forum once said: "I am the weapon, everything else is an accessory."
I think mindset is the crucial factor in combat. It doesn't matter how "deadly" your material is if you don't have the will to execute it decisively.

How many times to we hear stories where a criminal was beaten, even when he had the apparent advantage, because he wasn't really prepared to "go all the way?" Conversely, how many times do we hear about someone being victimized because they couldn't "flip the switch" when it counted?

I do like this "flip the switch" concept.

 

[sgtmac_46]

While surfing a forum that I haven't visited in quite some time, I came across this thread, thought it was pretty interesting, so I thought I'd post here for discussion. The question was as follows:

What is more crucial to the outcome of a violent situation... the method of the attack or the motive/mindset of the attacker?

Mindset........hand's down.

"‘Was Wild Bill one of the quickest shots?’ I ventured.


"‘Fair,’ smiled Cody, and I too smiled to hear a man say that Wild Bill was a ‘fair’ shot. But this was Buffalo Bill speaking, and he spoke as one with authority.


"'"Bill" was only a nickname we gave him, you know.’ I didn’t know, but nodded. ‘His real name was James B. Hickox, and we got to calling him "Wild Bill" because when we were all boys together there were four "Bills" in the wagon train, and we had to sort them out somehow. Jim Hickox was always popping away at everything he saw move when on guard at night over the stock, so we sort of got to calling him "Wild" Bill, and that is how the name came to him. They called me "Buffalo" Bill because I had that buffalo contract with the U. P. and got down over 4,250 for meat. I have forgotten what became of the other two "Bills."’


"‘How did Hickox get so many men?’ I asked. "‘Well, Bill was a pretty good shot, but he could not shoot as quick as half a dozen men we all knew in those days. Nor as straight, either. But Bill was cool, and the men he went up against were rattled, I guess. Bill beat them to it. He made up his mind to kill the other man before the other man had finished thinking, and so Bill would just quietly pull his gun and give it to him. That was all there was to it. It is easy enough to beat the other man if you start first. Bill always shot as he raised his gun. That is, he was never in a hurry about it; he just pulled the gun from his hip and let it go as he was raising it; shoot on the up-raise, you might call it. Most men lifted the gun higher, then threw it down to cock it before firing. Bill cocked it with his thumb, I guess, as it was coming up into line with his man. That’s how he did it. But he was not the quickest man by any means. He was just cool and quiet, and started first. Bill Hickox was not a bad man, as is often pictured. But he was a bad man to tackle. Always cool, kind, and cheerful, almost, about it. And he never killed a man unless that man was trying to kill him. That’s fair.’ It was, and so I agreed.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/bios/zane.htm

The actual physical act of shooting another man in close combat doesn't require much physical skill..........the psychological barrier's of fear and ambivalent morality is by far greater.

Those who thrive in that environment aren't necessarily the most skilled (though that doesn't hurt) but those who are able to to take the psychological shortcut to reach the conclusion that it's time to start shooting, or stabbing, or punching, or whatever, first, and continue to do it until there is no threat.

 

[MJS]

Thanks for the great replies. Likewise, I too, am going with the mindset. Of course, as Sgtmac said, regarding those who thrive in that environment, ie: inmates, its funny how sometimes, even they, despite all their chest puffing and what appears to be valid intent, can easily have their bluff called.

Whats interesting, and perhaps we can drift this thread in that direction, is that this mindset applies to not only the badguys, but the goodguys as well. Yet how many times have we seen people cringe at the thought of doing anything violent, in the martial arts? One would think that the mindset is something that would be discussed in the training hall, yet it rarely, if ever is.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thanks for the great replies. Likewise, I too, am going with the mindset. Of course, as Sgtmac said, regarding those who thrive in that environment, ie: inmates, its funny how sometimes, even they, despite all their chest puffing and what appears to be valid intent, can easily have their bluff called.

Whats interesting, and perhaps we can drift this thread in that direction, is that this mindset applies to not only the badguys, but the goodguys as well. Yet how many times have we seen people cringe at the thought of doing anything violent, in the martial arts? One would think that the mindset is something that would be discussed in the training hall, yet it rarely, if ever is.

The late great Colonel Jeff Cooper wrote a great essay on the subject called 'The Deadly American', which he included in his anthology 'Fireworks!'......it's a worth a read for anyone who can find it, and makes some pretty interesting points on the subject.........Colonel Cooper was definitely of the camp that the mindset is far more important than skill at arms, which he certainly didn't shun.

In that vein, I think it's very instructive to examine the thought processes of those who have thrived under such extraordinary adversity using skill at arms. What we find is that those who are most successful at repelling borders are those who very quickly accurately size up the situation, and even more quickly respond with a realistic and often violent counter-attack that is done with absolute commitment, and without further regard for personal fear.

Bruce Lee's quote from the Tao of Jeet Kune Do comes to mind as summing this mindset up very well........

"Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life! Do not be concerned with escaping safely- lay your life before him!" -Bruce Lee 'Tao of Jeet Kune Do'

I think a proper mindset, day to day, is defensive, avoiding dangers.........but once a situation is engaged, thinking defensively may be a liability.........at the moment of truth acting without the limiting concern of personal safety may actually be a tool of survival!

That mentality is well represent in the Asian Arts, with reference to zen concepts such as 'No Mind'........acting without reflecting.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Mindset........hand's down.

The actual physical act of shooting another man in close combat doesn't require much physical skill..........the psychological barrier's of fear and ambivalent morality is by far greater.

Those who thrive in that environment aren't necessarily the most skilled (though that doesn't hurt) but those who are able to to take the psychological shortcut to reach the conclusion that it's time to start shooting, or stabbing, or punching, or whatever, first, and continue to do it until there is no threat.

I agree Sgt. but note while Wild Bill may not have been the 'fastest' or 'most accurate', he WAS one of the better ones. And I feel that matters.

Plenty of people have lots of hate and determination to kill, but lacking skill they usually do something stupid and get themselves killed unless it's some poor defenseless child or frail old lady they hurt, and you can guess how I fell about that!

So it behooves us to both become skillful at our particular methods of defense and at the same time cultivate a fighting mindset, a mindset of prevailing regardless of the method.

Which reminds me, any of you guys remember a Watergate burglar named G. Gordon Liddy? Well he said something that I’ve always kept in my mind.

When asked if he was a ‘survivor’, he said, “No, I’m a prevailer”. He felt he did not just survive events, but instead prevailed over them.

And I intend on being a prevailer, not just a ‘survivor’. And also like in one of Jeff Coopers books, I intend on being the leaver.. instead of the one left on the ground.

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree Sgt. but note while Wild Bill may not have been the 'fastest' or 'most accurate', he WAS one of the better ones. And I feel that matters.

Plenty of people have lots of hate and determination to kill, but lacking skill they usually do something stupid and get themselves killed unless it's some poor defenseless child or frail old lady they hurt, and you can guess how I fell about that!

So it behooves us to both become skillful at our particular methods of defense and at the same time cultivate a fighting mindset, a mindset of prevailing regardless of the method.

Which reminds me, any of you guys remember a Watergate burglar named G. Gordon Liddy? Well he said something that I’ve always kept in my mind.

When asked if he was a ‘survivor’, he said, “No, I’m a prevailer”. He felt he did not just survive events, but instead prevailed over them.

And I intend on being a prevailer, not just a ‘survivor’. And also like in one of Jeff Coopers books, I intend on being the leaver.. instead of the one left on the ground.

Deaf

Calm deliberation often trumps superior technical skill. The will to prevail and to impose your will on the other is more important that technical skill, as you point out...........of course having both ain't a detriment..............the SAS motto is 'He who dares, wins!'