Sheeps, Sheepdogs & Wolves; Why Psychological Arcgetypes are dangerious

[Draven]

This is somewhat realated to the What You Can/Can't Do thread; only in that I feel to many people are playing the psychological archetype game with self-defense laws. You see a) Laws are determined by the courts & not by LEOs and well b) unless someone is a lawyer they aren't qualified to give legal advise. So I'm going to take another turn we are going to look at psychology; particularly Frued, Jung & B.F. Skinner. You can skip that if you wish & go directly to the "Heart of the Matter..."

Frued: Id, Ego & Super-Ego
The basic principle of Frued's psychology was that much of the mind's processes are done without conscious thought with more then 2/3rds the mind opportating at un contious level. Frued also had a deeply contested belief that one's interactions with one's parents was also a foundation for how one reacted with the opposite sex, but that plays no part in this discussion...

More so Frued divided the mind into 3 parts:
The Id: is fully uncontious instinct and deals specifically with personal wants & desires...
The Ego: The ego is both conscious & unconscious a bridge between the Id & Super-Ego & deals with external needs in one's environment...
The Super-Ego: The super-ego is unconscious and the source of individual morality & ethics, more so the super-ego is product of one's conditioning.

So then while Id says "I am..." as in "I am hungery" the Ego looks at external sources to full fill that need & also reacts to sensory information. The Ego smells food & connects the internal sense of hunger with external sensory input of food. There are times when the Ego's sensory input also triggers the Id's desires. The Super-Ego is the restraint taught to us as children and young adults; its a product of individual ideologies, cultural indentity & rewarded compliance via experiences. So the super ego is what tells us not to steal the food who smell or to do in a way which reduces our risks.

Carl Jung: Psychological Archetypes = Social Indentity & Roleplaying
Carl Jung was many things, among them an avid occultists; a student of both Eastern Mysticism & Western Occultism, and a direct student of Sigmond Frued's psychiatry & compared it with his occult studies. Many of which, & especially from the Eastern Schools dealt with Psychological factors. Comparing Frued to Plato & other ancient occult sourse; Carl Jung introduced the Psychological Archetype Theory, which was based on the Greek Occult belief in a true name & reinforced with Frued's own unrelated psychological theories...

In essence the individual seeks to define themselves based on social identity or psychological archetype & justifies said actions based on the pretext of the achetype. For example archetype of the "hero" which leads others to do the "right thing" & justify it as a pretext based on the archetype; Lil Billy wants Marry but Marry sees Billy as just a friend, so Billy professes to be the brotherly type acting on the pretext of being the "hero" & "protecting Mary" chases away any of Mary's suitures leaving her to eventually turn to him. All a common adolesent behavior...

B. F. Skinner: Experience shapes the Mind
Skinner was a more recent psychologist who created the theory of radical behaviorism and again falling back to Frued & Jung as source material explained in greater detail how experience particularly positive (rewarding) influences & negative (punishing) influences are used to build associated beliefs & habits.

Basicly creating sensory data via the Ego & condition the Super-Ego (as an natural progress of Frued's threoy) but by limited the options available to the Ego. Thus building a conscious (ego based) & unconscious (super-ego based) memory of reward & punishment to create an even more restrictive application of the psychological archetypes (the end result).

Now the Heart of the Matter;
Many people seem to buy into & believe the Sheep, Wolves & Sheepdog archetype arguement espoused by Ret. Col Dave Grossman. Grossman's sheep, wolf & sheepdog archetypes are surrogates for the Victim (the Innocent: Jung), Villian (the Shadow: Jung) & Hero archetypes.

The Hero: The hero is savior of the innocents & punisher of the villians.
The Victim: Is the poor innocent plagued by the villian and dependant on the Hero to come save them.
The Villian: Is generally a projection as no really likes apply the archetype to themselves, is the monsters we fight both within ourselves; our own sinister drives, & without those we see as the enemy. Problem is even serial killers want to offer a pretext to justify their actions & came they are simply "victims" of a greater evil within society.

The huge problem with this idea surrogate archetypes is;
a) No one chooses to be the villian & waiting around of a hero to come save you is a dangerious & irresponsible mindset to have. No one is the innocent little lamb awaiting to sheep dog to protect them from being slaughtered.

b) No one is the hero or the villian, they simply are human being who are in all ways equally as flawed. Heros & villians have one thing in common; they both have strength the innocents do not.

Take a child's bed time story or even common myths; the villian often has poor he/she lords over the weak and innocent peasants, a hero comes to save the ibbocent peasants (usually because hes chasing a beautiful princess) where he fights and defeats the evil villian and lives happily ever after in the villians place. Its pretty in fairy tales but lets be adults here...

The Villian or Monster; is someone who has strength & uses it...
Princess; is the right to rule, a claim to the throne & personnal power. She could look like pig but her position still makes her beautiful.
The Hero; is a lesser evil who saves the people from the greater evil, but is ultimately as just dangerious as the villian. As they both have strength...
Peasants; the poor innocents who have no power to protect themselves and must rely on waiting for a "hero figure" to arrive.

c) We live in a culture where any kind of decent from the traditional constraints of society are seen as being "villianious." Therefore creating various sub-cultures within our culture & splinter societies within society, each one relying on the Hero, Victim & Villian archetypes...

Look at the Mofia which used the "hero" archetype as a pretext to justify criminal activity because it was "us" (Italians) versus them (Non-Italians). And we see the same process repeated with other groups using various honorable ideologies ranging from equal rights & religion to some blurred "greater good" appealing to emotional & cultural/sociological archetypes to seek justifications.

Ah but what happens when the hero never comes..? What happens when you strip away the viel of BS to the heart of the matter? You find that there are only two types of people; Wolves; those stronger, smarter & more willing to use it, & Sheep; those weaker, dumbers or not willing to exercise what strength thay have. Yes, their a wolves in sheeps clothing; the strpng you bait you in with fiented weakness, but they are still wolves none the less...

You see the mind; the Ego rationalizes the reistance of Super-Ego with the desires of the Id using an internal archetype struggle within ourselves. The Ego appeases the Id's desire for self-protection & it's own desire to not be harmed with Super-Ego's resentment for using violence by creating several different archetype based excuses;
*I am the Innocent; a hero come save...
*I am the Sage; wise & above common solutions...
*I am the Good Guy; who is above doing evil or evil & will suffer the evil to protect others...
*I am the Trickster; cunning and deceptive...
*I am the Hero; the savior & punisher of evil men; I will do what I must & be justified...
*I am the Villian; the monster, I do what I want; right or wrong, because I have the strength to do so...

Problem, occurs when you look at the threat of violence coming from another human being you make excuses to justify your restraint or in action. You give yourself a psychological reward for being weak; perhaps your simpliy obeying the law, & in so doing falling into a cycle of rewarding yourself for being a victim. A hero archetype is further more a danger all its own; after all when the hero changes his stance from protecting to punishing he, becomes a villian himself to all but his own mind.

Much to surpise of most the most psychologically stable personality is the shadow, the villian. You see the villian doesn't deny whom he is & he is not seeking justification. That doesn't mean the "bad guy" can't do good either; just as the "good guy" is not immune to doing bad. Much as when Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." we have all done "bad things" but believing that excusing them or hiding from them does anything to remove that fact only casts us deeper into the proverbial shadow...

 

[Archangel M]

I think you are reading too much into Grossman. This isn't about being a cop or a civilian. It's about your mindset.

Its a metaphor for what you choose to be..are you going to allow yourself to be a victim (sheep) dependent on the sheepdog to come and save you from the wolf or are you going to be a sheepdog yourself? Who bears primary responsibility for your safety? Yourself or someone else? THAT is what this metaphor is about.

Getting pedantic about a metaphor is as bad as believing a metaphor is some sort of law or philosophy.

 

[MJS]

I may not be following where you're going with this Draven. I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into? If thats the case, I'll say this: at one point in my life, I guess I would've been considered a sheep. However, due to the way the sheep are usually treated, and due to the way the world changes, I've become a sheepdog.

Much better choice IMHO. Mind their own business, dont go out looking for trouble, but when trouble comes to them, they face it, rather than turning their backs.

 

[SensibleManiac]

I won't go too much into this but even though I do think you are on the right path and have some good ideas, some of what you're writing is just confused and meaningless.

Look at the Mofia which used the "hero" archetype as a pretext to justify criminal activity because it was "us" (Italians) versus them (Non-Italians).

The Mafia originated in several parts of Italy, (primarily Sicily) and was Italians against Italians. Yes they eventually spread to other parts of the world and the US, but your argument is just wrong. They didn't develop to be against non-italians.

Anyway I would say keep studying and thinking, as this is how you develop critical thinking skills and understanding.

But you still have a way to go.

As for the law, you do have a point, in the eyes of the law what someone regards as self defense because of some delusion they had about their role, (they are the sheepdog protecting the sheep against the wolf) or I am innocent and I protected myself against the villain, is completely meaningless in the eyes of the courts.
Whether you have a chance to escape and were indeed protecting yourself from an immediate threat that you could not have otherwise escaped is all that the law sees.
How you view yourself or the other person is completely irrelevant to the law.
Did you have no other way out and defended yourself from an actual threat, or did you have justification in perceiving a threat.
The law does differ in different States and countries but the meaning of self defense is generally the same.
Although what is allowed as self defense or not is viewed differently.
I am not a lawyer but anyone training for self defense should familiarize themselves with the law concerning it.

 

[Draven]

I think you are reading too much into Grossman. This isn't about being a cop or a civilian. It's about your mindset.

Getting pedantic about a metaphor is as bad as believing a metaphor is some sort of law or philosophy.

Grossman's metaphor is drawn from Jungarian psychology in archetype theory, more the advancement in the theory made by (damn can't remember his name) in the past twenty years. Unfortunately Grossman is either an idiot unknowingly reinforcing a victim mentality (which I don't believe) or (and the most plausible) allowing his own views in support of authoritarian figures cause him to place such people in authoritarian positions into a almost "sainted heroic" role. True, I could easily have been less academic in the matter it is something that strikes a cord with me on the academic (as it seems deliberate propaganda based on Jungarian psychology) level & a bit of the "WTF is everyone thinking but into that BS?" personal level.

I may not be following where you're going with this Draven. I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into?

Not quite... My point is less about what psychological archetype a person uses to define themselves and more to stripping it away... Consider it a mental execise in "surpassing form" to better function.

I did include some psychological points to clearify were I was coming from but, the point doesn't get made until the after the "heart of the Matter" part of post. All that info on Frued, Jung & Skinner is just source info to give you an idea of where I get my stated opinions... Sensible Manic is close to where I'm going...

I won't go too much into this but even though I do think you are on the right path and have some good ideas, some of what you're writing is just confused and meaningless.

How so..? I was pretty much multi-tasking typeing that with some other stuff so I may have gotten a bit side tracked.

The Mafia originated in several parts of Italy, (primarily Sicily) and was Italians against Italians. Yes they eventually spread to other parts of the world and the US, but your argument is just wrong. They didn't develop to be against non-italians.

I was limiting my scope more here in the US, the mofia in Itiality & Sicily use a different tactic then here in the US were they can use real or imagined "racial strife" as justification for their activities. The same tactic is seen used among street gangs; many times on the issues of race, some using the idea of "rich" against "poor" & some based on geographic locations. But, you are right, which should go without saying...

 

[jjwalters]

I may not be following where you're going with this Draven. I'm assuming you're asking what category we all fall into? If thats the case, I'll say this: at one point in my life, I guess I would've been considered a sheep. However, due to the way the sheep are usually treated, and due to the way the world changes, I've become a sheepdog.

Much better choice IMHO. Mind their own business, dont go out looking for trouble, but when trouble comes to them, they face it, rather than turning their backs.

I have always considered myself a wolf in sheeps clothing.......

I will BAAAAA for a while (until you step into my space aggressively) then if you don't leave really quick I will chew your ear off

 

[Archangel M]

You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.

I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.

 

[kaizasosei]

Great read Draven! Thanks for the ideas. I myself have studied some psychology. Should have started way earlier though. Still remember how back in the day, everything was going ok in my relationship until my lady started psych classes and turned pyschic or something. Well, she called it Freudian slips and busted my *** over and over again.-geez-who knew!?

So after picking myself up and dusting off a bit, i decided to get informed. So i got into different teachings of psychology. I must say, from that which i have had the opportunity to check out, the teachings of jung apeal to me. I like how he incorporates the ideas of gender in the anima and animus. Also, i like how there is this open feeling allowing room for other explainations. Sometimes, freud seems to explain everything a little too well. Freud figured out all his shiznit in vienna. nuff said.

Jung was something of a protege or apprentice of Freud if i'm not misinformed. I do think that the teachings of Jung get a little lost when he freely blends his ideas with spiritual and alchemical mythology but nevertheless a very sincere approach in my book.



j

 

[Makalakumu]

You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.

I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.

That's a great point. People are diverse and not easily pigeonholed in real life, but this metaphor does serve a purpose. As a non-LEO and martial artist, I find a lot of value in Grossman's work. When it comes to my family and the people I love, I am the sheepdog. We all can step in and out of these archetypes for various reasons.

 

[Draven]

You also have to remember who Grossmans audience is.

I believe he is trying to reinforce in LE/MIL minds that THEY are the ones who have to go into an active shooter situation (where he focuses if you have read and seen his presentations...which I have) and deal with the bad guy. They are the ones who have to go toward the sound of the guns. The sheepdog analogy (I am the sheepdog..its my job to protect the flock) may just be the thing that gets that scared officer to go into that school shooting and deal with the killer.

Thats where the archetypes become dangerious; even in modern literature to ancient mythology the "hero" often breaks the rules and does a necessary evil for the greater good. So just as using the "hero" archetype might get one LEO to rush into a Columbine style school shooting (against SOP) thinking their job as "sheepdog" is to protect & it could also cause a different LEO to see himself as "the punisher of wicked" & fabricate evidence against someone he belives is guilty. Whether that person is guilty or not doesn't matter, since the LEO would then be a criminal himself for violating the law & worst responsible for either imprisioning an innocent man or giving the criminal a means to get back on the street.

Most likely as an individual's emotions effect their judgement the same individuals bounce between the two extremes. Every archetype has a light-side and shadow-side; positive & negative interpetations. The problem is that teaching only one or the other completely removes the fact that allot of archetypes are guides for rationalizations. Hitler, Caesar & Stalan were some of most brutal and sadistic of tyrannts; yet they often approached their actions from rationalized pretext of being a "hero" and having to serve "the greater good." In fact, Julius Caesar wrote much to the same effect in his own chronicals...

Jung was something of a protege or apprentice of Freud if i'm not misinformed. I do think that the teachings of Jung get a little lost when he freely blends his ideas with spiritual and alchemical mythology but nevertheless a very sincere approach in my book.

Jung's primary interest in psychology was unravelling the "secrets" of the Ancient Mystery Schools. From what I've gathered of the occult schools many taught simple (almost zen like) philosophy, human psychology & some elements of a science but they used metaphor to conceal intent. So Jung went to Frued to learn the science behind the mysticism, Jung was also quoted in my philosophy class since our psychological archetypes of self-definition are the foundation for our philosophical prospectives.

For example; it is often held belief streaming from the Greek mystery cults that if you know a person's "true name" you can control them, it is often used as a metaphor about "controlling the natural elements"
of fire, water, earth, air & spirit. Now without getting too far into this; each element relates to an emotional state, the true name is a psychological archetype & if you can learn a person's self-definition & influence their emotional state you can direct the psychological pretext for their actions. Thus the "hero" can be "pushed" toward a path leading to anger & resentment & be move closer to being the avenger then the protector. Least thats the idea...

That's a great point. People are diverse and not easily pigeonholed in real life, but this metaphor does serve a purpose. As a non-LEO and martial artist, I find a lot of value in Grossman's work. When it comes to my family and the people I love, I am the sheepdog. We all can step in and out of these archetypes for various reasons.

Thats somewhat right & somewhat wrong, the archetype isn't a box its a compass. A compass doesn't tell you where you are it simply lets you know which way is North (South if you're below to equator) & you have to get your barings and go from there. The archetype is an idea & what you do is rationalized by that archetype; every achetype has a good & bad/light & shadow side to it. Depending on how you rationalize your actions & thoughts determines where you stand in the mix.

 

[Archangel M]

Thats where the archetypes become dangerious; even in modern literature to ancient mythology the "hero" often breaks the rules and does a necessary evil for the greater good. So just as using the "hero" archetype might get one LEO to rush into a Columbine style school shooting (against SOP) thinking their job as "sheepdog" is to protect & it could also cause a different LEO to see himself as "the punisher of wicked" & fabricate evidence against someone he belives is guilty.

Sorry but Im going to be blunt...you are talking out of your ***. What is your experience and expertise with police policy?

IMO, this statement alone illustrates your ignorance of rapid deployment tactics and police "policy". Something of which I AM an authority. And if you really believe that the sheepdog METAPHOR is the cause of police impropriety than I think that you are making MORE of a reach with your little Jung dissertation here than Grossman ever has, and I am a critic of Grossman overreaching with his "research" myself.

 

[Draven]

Reserve MP after active duty; had to learn Fed Codes to deal with civilians right beside UCMJ regs, And about 80% of the NCOs were civilian LEO with less then 50% of the enlisted either planning to go LEO, I have a good source of info. Oh yeah & I have active duty Infantry School under my belt.

If I'm ignorant educate me...? Please explain..?

Otherwise, I'll assume I hit the nail on the head with you. Here we go with LEOs are "Good People" & can do no wrong. The problem with my point isn't that I reading too much into Grossman's assessment; its that applying the science which Grossman isn't. The problem is when you invoke an archetype, you have to invoke both aspects of that achetype good and bad; because poeple are innately both good & bad. You cannot say that a person is beyond doing bad things; just because they have a position within society or they invoke part of an archetype. Grossman's anology is very much like the similar annologies used by Hitler or Stallen, all three approached the annology from only one side & didn't give a complete picture...

I don't think Grossman's Metaphor is the cause of anyhting but it does point to a specific & dangerious throught process of justification & social ideologies that plauge far more then LE or Military...

 

[Archangel M]

I was an MP too...most of my "LE expertise" consisted of route recon/security, MSR patrolling, defile security and checkpoints. And back in my day we actually did law and order missions, now it's the DOD coppers who do that. So I have enough experience to be "underwhelmed" with an MP's opinion on modern civilian LE developments.

First off..most department "policy" for active shooter response IS 1-4 man entry's. Up till a year or 2 ago the SOP was the 4-man diamond, however most modern active shooters cap themselves when confronted with counter-fire and waiting for 4+ officers to assemble means many more people getting killed. So most depts. are altering their rapid deployment plan to get a "sheepdog" inside to stop the "wolf" from killing ASAP.

It only took 2 DOD cops to take care of the Ft. Hood shooter..how many more would have been killed had they waited for a few more officers?

IMO your focusing on Carl Jung as the linchpin of this "philosophy" is as flawed as Grossman's dependence on S.L.A. Marshall's "research" on men under fire. You both are taking an interesting point and stretching it WAY too far in order to support your worldview. Show me some evidence.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Warning: Claiming to be something you're not makes people who have been there and done that a tad angry. Stolen valor and all that. That's my one and only warning, then I will cut loose.

 

[blink13]

29 Palms? Camp Wilson, I do believe?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

29 Palms? Camp Wilson, I do believe?

You are correct, sir. Circa 1981 or 1982. That's me trying to tan my pale Welsh-American skin on the hood of my M880 at Camp Wilson. I was with MP Co, HQBn, 1st MarDiv out of Camp Pendleton, CA. We did Combined Arms Exercises (CAX) every couple of months to 29 Stumps.

And how did you happen to know it was Camp Wilson? You also find sand in your c-rats once or twice?

EDIT: Just checked out your profile. Semper Fi, bro.

 

[blink13]

Been there, done that, a few times over - except the sand was in my MREs, thank you.

 

[blink13]

Bill - you have a PM.

 

[Draven]

Michael I think your too focused on the Grossman/LEO aspect & I'm by no means intending to lay this singularly at the feet of LE or Military men. Quite frankly Grossman is a moron; on the archetype aspect because he intentionally withdraws the light/shadow (good/bad) aspect of any archetype. I simply use Grossman because he is the most "preached" docturine in my self-defense forums. To place this in more an MA prospective; its like people defining themselves by a particular style or strategy; like those who define themselves as being "strikers" or "grapplers" focus on how they define their style; in that respect I define myself as a fighter and endever to perfect as many elements of combat as possible.

Another example of this is found not in Grossman but in The Mind of the Terrorist by Jerrold Post, one of the foundations of book is that "terrorists" are prefectly normal people who have allowed themselves to assume the self-definition of the "Hero" or "Sheepdog" from Al-Queada to the IRA each person is constantly taught to be the "hero" & fight the projected "villian." Grossman is just a "finger pointing to the moon" & a talking point for me... Try to look past that.

 

[The Last Legionary]

I love when pseudo-intellectuals pop in and pontificate on a subject yet can't work a spellcheck. It shoots their shoe boxing in the foot.