Sheeps, Sheepdogs & Wolves; Why Psychological Arcgetypes are dangerious
- Thread starter Draven
- Start date
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
Correct, to my knowledge Grossman doesn't do a whole lot of civilian programs. I attended his "Bulletproof Mindset" seminar a few years ago and the Sheepdogs analogy was part of that training. Since then the article has been printed to a wide audience.
As to procedures of military vs. LEO there are quite a few. In fact, after Columbine, most if not all police departments took a step back and looked at their procedures to deal with a situation like that. Our department trains to go in with whoever is there first. If it's 4 officers then great, if it's only 2 then that's what you make do with. For school resource/liaison officers, you are already there so you go first and give as much intel as possible to responders and try to contain the situation.
That requires a specific mindset that a civilian doesn't necessarily have to have to take care of themselves or their family.
I think that the purpose of the article was very clear and then intent of throwing out archetypes etc and talking about their "shadow side" is an attempt to drum up marketing business and stretch the metaphor into aspects it wasn't meant to. Now, the person can peddle their own brand of self-defense, because the police are evil and the bad guys are evil, so you can only rely on yourself and what I have to offer.
- Thread Starter
- #23
Punisher, you seem to be missing my intent here which is to address the dangers of applying archetype definitions without understand them. Grossman's Sheep, Wolf & Sheepdog theory is not just expressed to LE/Military, its in the public forum. Grossman marketted the idea on the web.
Now you & Archangel, have done a great job in proving how someone can become be so dependant on the archetype; as an expression of self that they cling to justifications for it. The "shadow side" of the archetype is the other side of the theory, that a person has to examine to apply any archetype realistically. Its not stretching the metaphor anymore then then saying, that MA training ends at the level of "black belt" when there are still more grade and other elements of study.
An archetype is; In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.
Just as I did expand on the symbolic pattern of though of Grossman's origional work to find what I call a defect in his archetype theory. Its not the limitations expressed in the metaphor that define it, its the imagery it invokes thats makes metaphors so power as to tool of expression. Its the ability to expand & rationalize the imagery of any metaphor that makes it dangerious to see it as only positive or negative.
You keep defending Grossman's theory & suggestively attacking my motives which seems to show a fear of facing a negative rationalization of imagery of the metaphor. Why is that? Feeling a need to justify yourself or perhaps its a matter of defending your own self-definition. How about we forget Grossman for a second & examine other archetypes..?
Now you & Archangel, have done a great job in proving how someone can become be so dependant on the archetype; as an expression of self that they cling to justifications for it. The "shadow side" of the archetype is the other side of the theory, that a person has to examine to apply any archetype realistically. Its not stretching the metaphor anymore then then saying, that MA training ends at the level of "black belt" when there are still more grade and other elements of study.
An archetype is; In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.
Just as I did expand on the symbolic pattern of though of Grossman's origional work to find what I call a defect in his archetype theory. Its not the limitations expressed in the metaphor that define it, its the imagery it invokes thats makes metaphors so power as to tool of expression. Its the ability to expand & rationalize the imagery of any metaphor that makes it dangerious to see it as only positive or negative.
You keep defending Grossman's theory & suggestively attacking my motives which seems to show a fear of facing a negative rationalization of imagery of the metaphor. Why is that? Feeling a need to justify yourself or perhaps its a matter of defending your own self-definition. How about we forget Grossman for a second & examine other archetypes..?
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Of course its all on... "US".
Some of us have actually read and seen Grossman. The whole Sheepdog thing was an addendum at the end of the bulletproof mind seminar. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You have proven nothing because you haven't even really presented a point.
Have any depth to this theory of yours or is Jung it?
Jung=fuzzy mysticism riddled with modernist stereotypes and elements of racism. And his archetypes are ambiguous, simplistic constructs that simplistic people attempt to use as pigeonholes to order their reality. Or use it as a baffle with ******** smokescreen to justify THEIR little construct of reality.
Your pop-psych babble isn't impressing me any more than Grossmans use of SLA Marshalls anecdotal research of WWII soldiers battle experience as "proof" of mans behavior "nature" in combat did.
Some of us have actually read and seen Grossman. The whole Sheepdog thing was an addendum at the end of the bulletproof mind seminar. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You have proven nothing because you haven't even really presented a point.
Have any depth to this theory of yours or is Jung it?
Jung=fuzzy mysticism riddled with modernist stereotypes and elements of racism. And his archetypes are ambiguous, simplistic constructs that simplistic people attempt to use as pigeonholes to order their reality. Or use it as a baffle with ******** smokescreen to justify THEIR little construct of reality.
Your pop-psych babble isn't impressing me any more than Grossmans use of SLA Marshalls anecdotal research of WWII soldiers battle experience as "proof" of mans behavior "nature" in combat did.
Last edited:
The Master
Bow Before Me.
Some spend too much valuable yet finite time postulating the whyness of which, while ignoring the much more pertinent whichness of why. The Possibilities of intellectual engagement allude to to purposes both sublime yet pristine. Do you understand yet the purpose for this existence yet? Have you computed the potential for participants to see through the illusion to the imaginary nature of prescience? Has the truth permeated the cerebellum of wanton desire into your deeper recesses? Ah, but you see, an existence based on impaired vision, prevents one from identifying the true predators.
:bangahead:
Next time I take something too seriously, I'm going to read this post. LOL!
For what it's worth, courts don't determine laws, the legislature does. Courts apply laws. Police and prosecutors collectively make up law enforcement, and are, as the name implies, responsible for enforcing the laws.
As for the rest, when I was first exposed to Grossman's concept of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, my first thought was that it presented a relatively simple method of explaining, in very general terms, why people do what they do, and respond they way they do. In its own way, it is a "pep talk" for those in the law enforcement community. I believe anyone reading more into it than that does so at their own risk. To extrapolate that, based upon this analogy someone who sees in themselves the "hero" archetype may do "necessary evil" in order to render justice is a reach. If Grossman's analogy sends someone over that edge, they were teetering to begin with.
I don't know of anyone in the law enforcement community who will assert that those within the larger community "can do no wrong." IF I ever meet that person, I will take everything else they say with a grain of salt.
As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an analogy is just an analogy.
As for the rest, when I was first exposed to Grossman's concept of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, my first thought was that it presented a relatively simple method of explaining, in very general terms, why people do what they do, and respond they way they do. In its own way, it is a "pep talk" for those in the law enforcement community. I believe anyone reading more into it than that does so at their own risk. To extrapolate that, based upon this analogy someone who sees in themselves the "hero" archetype may do "necessary evil" in order to render justice is a reach. If Grossman's analogy sends someone over that edge, they were teetering to begin with.
I don't know of anyone in the law enforcement community who will assert that those within the larger community "can do no wrong." IF I ever meet that person, I will take everything else they say with a grain of salt.
As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an analogy is just an analogy.
While Grossman may have been gearing this 'idea' to a certain group of people, I still feel that the average person can take advantage of what it is he's trying to say. Regardless of whatever laws are in place, I dont think there is any law about being confident and showing it.
As far as the law goes....personally, I'm not overly worried about that. I've already addressed my thoughts on Sd, so no sense in rehashing it again.
- Thread Starter
- #29
As I said I want to take this away from Grossman's "pep talk" to other examples of archetypes and their influences. As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself...
As for "anyone reading more into it" well thats the purpose of an analogy; its intended to inspire and create a visual narative within the individuals mind. There is always risk of an individual expanding it as such within their own mind and carrying that archetype to whatever level they wish. It goes beyond simply Grossman & can even be applied to Martial Arts as well...
Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...
Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation. Getting away from Grossman for example; as martial artists we see the same "role playing" within the MA community. In fact its extremely common in the Martial Arts were a accountant may see himself as a warrior because he studies warrior tradition-x of ryu-ha-y passdown from soke-z & thus never having been in a fight since grade school feels he is a "warrior." Yet the only blood he spills comes from his own hand when he get a paper cut. I'm not knocking on accountants but we've all seen or heard of instructors taking the idea of budo to cult-like levels.
We all see the "worlds deadliest art" adds that people fall for or guys like Captain Chris who project a specific image into the persons head. Take your average joe; being fed these delusions of grandeur, sure its great to have the confidence to walk down the street at night and not be afraid of an attacker. However, thats the positive and that also means there is a negative to it as well; such as being too confident.
Another sad example is the "street fighter" archetype, there is a positive to it that being a focus on effective techniques but there is also a negative that many times an altercation can be defused or avoided without the use of those "effective techniques." Focusing on the positive leads to constant altercations & too much on the negative goes toward being inactive. So there is a need to balance the two realisticly; tread the middle path I guess you'd say.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
As I said I want to take this away from Grossman's "pep talk" to other examples of archetypes and their influences. As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself...
As for "anyone reading more into it" well thats the purpose of an analogy; its intended to inspire and create a visual narative within the individuals mind. There is always risk of an individual expanding it as such within their own mind and carrying that archetype to whatever level they wish. It goes beyond simply Grossman & can even be applied to Martial Arts as well...
Besides I try not to assume people have a great deal of common sense, experience has shown me otherwise...
Well I actually disagree with you on people being able to benefit, since I see what Grossman said an childishly simple and very open to individual interpetation. Getting away from Grossman for example; as martial artists we see the same "role playing" within the MA community. In fact its extremely common in the Martial Arts were a accountant may see himself as a warrior because he studies warrior tradition-x of ryu-ha-y passdown from soke-z & thus never having been in a fight since grade school feels he is a "warrior." Yet the only blood he spills comes from his own hand when he get a paper cut. I'm not knocking on accountants but we've all seen or heard of instructors taking the idea of budo to cult-like levels.
We all see the "worlds deadliest art" adds that people fall for or guys like Captain Chris who project a specific image into the persons head. Take your average joe; being fed these delusions of grandeur, sure its great to have the confidence to walk down the street at night and not be afraid of an attacker. However, thats the positive and that also means there is a negative to it as well; such as being too confident.
Another sad example is the "street fighter" archetype, there is a positive to it that being a focus on effective techniques but there is also a negative that many times an altercation can be defused or avoided without the use of those "effective techniques." Focusing on the positive leads to constant altercations & too much on the negative goes toward being inactive. So there is a need to balance the two realisticly; tread the middle path I guess you'd say.
As to Jungian archetypes, I think Grossman was going for an ANALOGY, and it wasn't meant to be taken and dissected so much. If you find the analogy useful then so be it. But, you are projecting into it your own bias and using it as a platform to expound on that.
In your last post you seem more to be arguing yin/yang. No one has said that their isn't a positive and a negative to things, that wasn't the point of Grossman's article. If you didn't want to focus on that then you shouldn't have brought it into the discussion as it relates to misapplied archetypes.
To each his own. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.
Now, I do agree with part of what you said...the fact that there're less that reliable folks out there, who, how shall I say it....like to BS unsuspecting people into actually believing that they're learning from someone legit. I mean, pick up an martial arts magazine, and you'll see it. That is why I also tell people to do their homework before giving someone their hard earned cash.Of course, there've been folks like that who come on here, but they usually dont last long. They come on, preaching some new invention, but in reality, its nothing new, but something old, simply repackaged. Those folks usually pack up shop and move elsewhere, especially when they start to get too many questions asked of them.
However, back to this topic...IMHO, the mindset is very important. Now, there are differences between being a wimp, being confident, and being over confident/cocky. Carrying yourself with confidence is key. Think about how a LEO or Corrections Officer acts, or should act. These people are dealing with anyone ranging from the avg. Joe, to total scumbag killers. If those types of people pick up the slightest bit of non confidence, the bad guy already owns them. We could watch the nature channel and see the same thing...weaker animals and stronger ones. They're always establishing who is the top dog, so to speak.
How does this relate here? Well, I dont think I really need to tell you do I? Oh ok, I will. LOL! If you're always walking with that confidence about you, chances are, you'll be less likely to be a victim. The badguy sees person a, chatting away on their cell, not paying attention to whats going on around them, etc, vs. person b, who just by simply body actions, lets it be known that they're aware, well, who do you think the victim will most likely be?
This isn't something that people can gain from a book. There're no magic secrets. A good portion of it is common sense, and anyone teaching SD should make it a point to instill this in all of their students from day 1.
I must have missed that statement. Based upon your writings thus far, it seems that your desire is to disparage instead.
As for courts not determining laws, no they donot except for the Supereme Court which can invalidate a law it feel violates the Constitution and as courts have the power to selectively enforce them they also have the power to determin how to apply the laws. We had seen court cases where the courts; or specifically judges have applied laws based on how they interpetted them. Personally, I'm a rules as written man myself...
Your prior statement was "You see a) Laws are determined by the courts & not by LEOs..." By so stating, along with the above, you have gotten into the realm of misconceptions and over-simplification. Ironic, considering this is what you accuse Grossman of. Since we are discussing law enforcement here, I will limit myself to criminal law. Laws, that is, statutes, are written by portions of the legislature (a committee), proposed for adoption (as a bill) approved by the legislature (via voting) and sent to the executive for approval as law (let's say the governor, since those are the laws most of us deal with on a normal basis). Now, at the trial level, courts do not interpret laws, they apply them. Particularly in criminal laws there is little leeway for "determining how to apply" these laws. Either a defendant is found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed all of the elements of an offense and determined to be guilty, or not. To use an analogy (!), it is almost like using an algorithm. If the trier of fact finds A to be true, they then move to B, then to C, and so on.
Trial courts do have some discretion in sentencing, but again, that discretion is put forth in sentencing statutes, which limit to a great extent what the trial court can do. For example, in the State of Ohio, a defendant cannot be sentenced to more than 18 months incarceration for a fourth degree felony.
As for laws being invalidated, that can and sometime does happen at the appellate level, but this seldom occurs, particularly at the appellate level. Typically, if an appellate court invalidates a specific statute as being contrary to a state or the U.S. Constitution, it typically eventually goes on to either state Supreme Courts, or the U.S. Supreme Court (very atypical). Then, if the ruling is upheld, the legislature goes back to the drawing board to make laws that are compliant with the relevant constitution.
More often, we see appellate courts finding error in what a trial court did, that is, procedural error, that denied a defendant a fair trial. Case law at both state and federal levels make clear that a trial court's decision is to be given the utmost discretion. So, no, in the context of criminal law, courts don't generally take an active role in "determining law." When they do, it is typically the province of the legislature to correct deficiencies.
Even here you are on shaky ground. An analogy is defined as "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification." Yes, when put forth as metaphor, or more precisely, as parable, they can be inspirational as well as useful in instruction. Again, though, the best analogies and parables work well because they simplify concepts and make them more easily understood.
While I agree with you on this point, I also find that most people tend to take things at face value. My experience is that this is typically because they take the message that is immediately apparent to them and don't look further. Sometimes this can be attributed to them being either disinterested or more negatively, intellectually lazy.
To reiterate, I believe the purpose of the message is to be simple, to be easily comprehended and retained. Given the audience, I also see a benefit. It is, for lack of a better word, comforting, to know someone can put into very simple words why I do what I do. I have spent twenty years in the military because I recognize in myself a capacity for violence when necessary. I also have an innate sense of empathy, as shown by both my MOS (medic) and my civilian occupation, as an assistant prosecuting attorney, doing child abuse cases for the over a decade, and now doing the domestic violence docket. In the latter capacity, I have seen those with a strong capacity for violence without any true empathy for their fellow man. I know of those who are "villains" with no compulsion about admitting it and making no excuses for it.
I don't consider myself the most enlightened or introspective person, but the message, at face value, makes sense to me.
Last edited:
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
- Thread Starter
- #35
To each his own. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.
Its rampant in MA and goes beyond just fraudulant instructors; I had an interested discussion with an Army buddy of mine whos heavily involved in police tactics & BJJ. We were discussing self-defense; now bear in mind I see self-defense as being the on the receiving end of a criminal assault. Then all of a sudden because I said I wasn't impressed with BJJ, because I have seen much the same techniques in Judo & Sport Jujitsu. He looks at me and says "Oh if someone really wants to hurt you they'll take you to the ground." My reply was "If someone wants to hurt me they'll use a weapon..."
Now the difference in how we each see each ourselves is clear; he sees himself as a "BJJ practicer" & see myself as "streetfighter." The difference is I embrace the negative side; that many of the techniques which are effective will not be needed in many altercations, where as he focuses on the positive that "hes a good groundfighter and that most fights go to the ground..." He avoid the negative that in most criminal assaults, muggings, beatings, car jackings etc. the "fights" never go to the ground because they usually involve more then one assailant, ambush tactics or a weapon of some kind.
Thats with anything, we're in a business and that means that many times people advertise only the positive and avoid the negative...
Problem is human's are thinking animals & well the posturing that comes with trying to be confident is a sign of weakness. LEOs, COs and even the military have this same problem; experience is the issue & embracing a psychological archetype to "create confidence" isn't always smart. I've seen many a "private" get his butt handed to him by the Average Joe because he let someone telling him "hes a killer" influence him into thinking hes a tough guy because he was trained or has a uniform. You see the same thing in other groups such as gangs; the less experienced are apt to believe they are "something special" because they belong to a gang. As already stated before we see this with MAs & MA orgs as well...
I understand what you're saying & have understood it, I just think you're focusing too much on the confidence angle; In the example you state the "victim a" was confident but unaware. Unaware and being confident are two different things, you are more likely to be aware when your unconfident (I'll even say scared) because your adrinoline is already pumping...
However, confidence is only one of many factors & as you pointed out possibly being confident but unaware is equally as dangerious. As for "magic secrets" sure there are "magic secrets" & thats the trick; people are always looking for deeper meaning (just like I did with Grossman's "pep talk") its human nature. The magic secret is that there is no magic secret but that doesn't stop people from looking for one or justifying their path to look for one.
Well, IMO, I think alot of people will be influenced by what surrounds them. For example...a student of the Gracies will most likely run around preaching the 'all fights go to the ground 99% of the time" speech, because thats what they're brought up on. People who dont know any better, will fall victim to the fakes and frauds in the MA world, and think that because Dr. X, who has a full page add in BB magazine, said it, then it must be true.
You're right. How many times have we seen a product come out, and shortly there after, 3 similar products, just with a different name, usually cheaper, come out? Happens all the time. But, much like those that come on here, trying to pass their stuff off as something new, in reality, its not new, but something based on an already existing idea. Of course, they take their toys and run away to their rooms, when those who know better, dont fall for their line of BS.
You're preaching to the choir bro.
I've said many many times, that the martial arts dont make us Supermen and Superwomen, yet how many people do we see that actually think that? When I was a CO, and was walking around the dorms, filled with 120 inmates, and just me and another CO, sure, I was nervous. I'd be lying to you if I said otherwise. But I didn't show it. I didn't walk with my head down, I spoke kindly but firm, with the inmates. They're not stupid. They would watch to see who was working that day. If they saw someone that they knew was weak, they'd be running that place all day long. Yet, when they saw someone who they knew didn't put up with any BS, it was a very different atmosphere. Actually, I think you may've misunderstood part of what I was saying. Person A is unaware, not confident. They're lost in their phone chat, fumbling in their purse to get their car keys, not paying attention to whats going on around them. Person B is aware and confident. They're not paranoid, meaning looking over their shoulder every 2secs., but they know whats going on.
Today for example, while in the grocery store with my wife. We walked right behind a woman, who was busy looking over some vegtables, yet her purse was in the cart, wide open. It would have been nothing for someone to grab something or the entire purse and keep right on walking.
SweetPea,
I stopped reading when he messed up on "Id". I figured it would be all downhill from there. Seems I was right. Ohhh well. Could be a good topic.
Lori
