I firmly believe that the only way for me to survive on the streets, is to be harmless and not a threaten to anyone. However, I say this as a small person who physically is not a threat to anyone at all.
This means, do not argue with the aggressor. Show your hands. In most cases, you will be left alone.
Yet I know of a few tall men who get picked on occasionally in the rougher suburbs of Vancouver by men who are so intimidated by men taller than themselves that their fear morphs into aggressive behavior which is inappropriate to social norms and violates the rules governing civil behavior.
Even though I may know the motives of the aggressors, and take pity on their victims, who considered it beneath their dignity to fall for the ruse but are physically capable of defending themselves, I point them out not out of criticism but out of one question, "Why?"
Any person who picks a fight on a person, regardless of size would reply, "Because I can."
It is not worth my time to argue against this kind of logic since it all too often leads to a fight.
Instead, I am now going to discuss two types of self-defense, the first of which requires speed and a lot of hiding places which provide enough safety to call for help and the second, a corner and a very strong will to live.
The number one rule in both forms of self defense is maintain distance between your self and the aggressor. No matter how much psychological warfare he uses through insults and verbal forms of aggression, maintain the advantage by not falling for it. Tell him to keep his distance.
For the first form of self-defense is called "run and hide". It assumes that the person under attack knows all the hiding places which will provide up to 30 minutes of safety.
A stairway in a building is a good example but the person must be willing to climb flights of stairs during those critical 30 minutes. Even better is a secured place with a door for which the person has a key but that still assumes that the aggressor is far enough away to unlock, close and lock the door. This assumes that the person under attack has the physical stamina to climb a lot of stairs. It also assumes that the person knows the physical layout of each level of the building.
My reason for a hiding place providing 30 minutes of safety is that is the minimum time it takes for the police to arrive when calling 9-11.
Another variant of "run and hide" is called "Frogger" and requires being near a stream of city traffic and agility. When under attack you dance into traffic, avoiding cars and trucks, and try to time things so that the aggressor abandons pursuit. This requires agility as not all drivers will stop and honk when a person is blocking traffic. This variant is also called "run and hide in plain sight". ;)
In the second form of self-defense, this is called "backed in a corner". It requires the person to fight off his aggressor, and is a no-win scenario if the aggressor is bigger than he is, or has a weapon. However, the tactic to use in the no-win scenario is to use psychological warfare to 1) show you have no weapon, and 2) appeal to the ego of the aggressor to fight a fair fight and engage in fair play. In such a scenario, there is no margin of safety at all. :o
However, more psychological warfare may be done to give the person under attack an advantage.
Another variant of this kind of self defense is called "chicken plucking" and involves the person under attack to remove articles of outer clothing to demonstrate to the aggressor what a fair fight involves. >:)
If you want to avoid robbers, when you see a person who has been following you for fifteen minutes, then walk towards him. Few robbers will attack a person face to face, since you have seen their face. "Run and hide" will only work if you know the neighborhood.
As for avoiding being mugged, act paranoid. A mugger needs the element of surprise.
Originally posted on November 28, 201 at 7:41 PM
Showing posts with label psychological warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychological warfare. Show all posts
20130103
Birds of a Feather Stick Together
One New Year's Day, my mother and I had a long discussion about how we treat each other. When she hears me talking in a manner that upsets her, she would use this argument to get me to behave:
"You talk as though you're smart, but you are not."
After she repeated this three times, I replied, "You know how this makes me feel? Like I am really this small."
I also told her that saying such things is like a form of brainwashing (emotional abuse).
When a person in authority, such as a parent, repeats such phrases, s/he is engaging in psychological warfare, even when it's within the family. The purpose of repeating such phrases is to break down the walls of defense of another family member, usually the child.
This is how a parent tries to control the behavior of her child. However, When a parent talks this way to her adult child, he will try to get her to understand the family dynamics by explaining to her how her words make him feel. For the purpose of getting a parent feedback is to help her see that her words do affect his self image.
In the case of my mother and I, her words may have made me feel as though I am weak and helpless when I was a child. Now that I am an adult, it just makes me feel small. Such belittling by the parent is done to help her feel as though she is in control.
During our discussion, my mother vowed to stay silent but broke that vow until I pointed it out to her. Finally, after I finished my New Year's Day dinner, I thanked her for it.
Later on that evening, my mother apologized for her bad behavior, and I reciprocated by apologizing for my bad behavior. Our mutual behavior during this long discussion would be called an argument by an outside observer.
In my eyes, "argument" implies a long discussion which two people engage with both sides presenting each other's main points. Such a discussion is engaged in so that each side is able to see the other person's point of view. The colloquial term for this aspect of the discussion is called "walking in my/your shoes".
Though the purpose of discussion is to communicate effectively, often through challenges such as inexperience, old age, social isolation and other factors, we see things solely from our point of view alone.
In order to "get the whole picture", it is necessary for people to communicate effectively and present differing points of view so that empathy is shared.
Hopefully, my mother will be aided by our discussion in understanding the family dynamics. For her bluntness is known to "rub people the wrong way."
While I admit that much of my parents' behavior has influenced me, I try not to be blunt and take my time in speaking since getting to the point abruptly tends to upset group harmony.
For now, I feel that New Year's Day was full of moments that enlightened me as to how I view myself and how that view has affected me.
Although my present circumstances reflects such a view, I do not believe that it is a permanent result of "how the way I was raised" but rather a temporary situation I call "dysfunctional self-image."
Additionally, I feel that my mother and I often have long discussions so that we are able to grow close to each other. My way of maintaining the familial ties that bind us together is to engage in argument with my mother so that we both respect each other as individuals.
I recall mentioning to her the phrase "birds of a feather stick together". However, I called this phrase a myth as it implies that like-minded people form a group based a mutual interest when often it is used to imply that a group are all alike.
It's a myth when used in this way because it also implies a "them versus us" mentality. For such a mentality arises when we confront an imagined adversary called "them" who we feel is not the same as us.
This is another case of the "self versus other" dichotomy which I have been writing about in previous articles.
Self and other are not actually adversaries at all.
Rather, when emotions arise, be it anger, hate, love, and other passionate feelings, a person encounters the "fight or flight" response to perceived threat from another person. This threat may be real or imagined, but the result is the same. To counteract this threat, each other engages in a "battle of words" so that the other side is provided with information that helps to determine the ultimate course of "the battle".
This battle is called "argument". Its purpose is to present each person's side in a manner that helps the other side become empathetic towards the other side, whilst helping the other side become of like mind.
In doing so, both side of an argument benefit. Rather than continuing with the myth of "them versus us", it is possible through reasoning and understanding to become like "birds of a feather" who "stick together".
For this is what long discussions I have with my mother are all about!
"You talk as though you're smart, but you are not."
After she repeated this three times, I replied, "You know how this makes me feel? Like I am really this small."
I also told her that saying such things is like a form of brainwashing (emotional abuse).
When a person in authority, such as a parent, repeats such phrases, s/he is engaging in psychological warfare, even when it's within the family. The purpose of repeating such phrases is to break down the walls of defense of another family member, usually the child.
This is how a parent tries to control the behavior of her child. However, When a parent talks this way to her adult child, he will try to get her to understand the family dynamics by explaining to her how her words make him feel. For the purpose of getting a parent feedback is to help her see that her words do affect his self image.
In the case of my mother and I, her words may have made me feel as though I am weak and helpless when I was a child. Now that I am an adult, it just makes me feel small. Such belittling by the parent is done to help her feel as though she is in control.
During our discussion, my mother vowed to stay silent but broke that vow until I pointed it out to her. Finally, after I finished my New Year's Day dinner, I thanked her for it.
Later on that evening, my mother apologized for her bad behavior, and I reciprocated by apologizing for my bad behavior. Our mutual behavior during this long discussion would be called an argument by an outside observer.
In my eyes, "argument" implies a long discussion which two people engage with both sides presenting each other's main points. Such a discussion is engaged in so that each side is able to see the other person's point of view. The colloquial term for this aspect of the discussion is called "walking in my/your shoes".
Though the purpose of discussion is to communicate effectively, often through challenges such as inexperience, old age, social isolation and other factors, we see things solely from our point of view alone.
In order to "get the whole picture", it is necessary for people to communicate effectively and present differing points of view so that empathy is shared.
Hopefully, my mother will be aided by our discussion in understanding the family dynamics. For her bluntness is known to "rub people the wrong way."
While I admit that much of my parents' behavior has influenced me, I try not to be blunt and take my time in speaking since getting to the point abruptly tends to upset group harmony.
For now, I feel that New Year's Day was full of moments that enlightened me as to how I view myself and how that view has affected me.
Although my present circumstances reflects such a view, I do not believe that it is a permanent result of "how the way I was raised" but rather a temporary situation I call "dysfunctional self-image."
Additionally, I feel that my mother and I often have long discussions so that we are able to grow close to each other. My way of maintaining the familial ties that bind us together is to engage in argument with my mother so that we both respect each other as individuals.
I recall mentioning to her the phrase "birds of a feather stick together". However, I called this phrase a myth as it implies that like-minded people form a group based a mutual interest when often it is used to imply that a group are all alike.
It's a myth when used in this way because it also implies a "them versus us" mentality. For such a mentality arises when we confront an imagined adversary called "them" who we feel is not the same as us.
This is another case of the "self versus other" dichotomy which I have been writing about in previous articles.
Self and other are not actually adversaries at all.
Rather, when emotions arise, be it anger, hate, love, and other passionate feelings, a person encounters the "fight or flight" response to perceived threat from another person. This threat may be real or imagined, but the result is the same. To counteract this threat, each other engages in a "battle of words" so that the other side is provided with information that helps to determine the ultimate course of "the battle".
This battle is called "argument". Its purpose is to present each person's side in a manner that helps the other side become empathetic towards the other side, whilst helping the other side become of like mind.
In doing so, both side of an argument benefit. Rather than continuing with the myth of "them versus us", it is possible through reasoning and understanding to become like "birds of a feather" who "stick together".
For this is what long discussions I have with my mother are all about!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)