treelizard

One of the lines that's repeatedly fed in self-defense seminars, especially women's self-defense seminars, is "If you get home safely, you did the right thing."

I always thought this was a total line of BS. They spend eight hours or twenty hours or however long teaching you techniques and then basically give you the green light to screw them up. It's sort of like saying, "Why yes, son, driving into the curb and almost hitting pedestrians and having a lot of near-misses for ignoring red lights and stop signs is bad, but it's okay, because you got home safely, so you did the right thing."

On the other hand, I can think of countless examples where people have done things that by the book would not work, and yet they did. They weren't following logic, but were using their intuition. So you can what-if this to death. If getting home safely isn't the criteria for whether you had a correct response, what is?

SamuraiGuy

Getting out alive with minimal harm to yourself and others?

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

treelizard

Obviously a good thing. But does it really mean you did the right thing? Let me try to rephrase this... I was riding in a car with a friend the other day when we almost got in a car accident. He basically ignored a stop sign and the other car had to slam on their brakes and swerve out of the way. Then he said, "Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot I couldn't just go." We made it home safely. I've been in countless other cars with countless other people that obeyed traffic laws, followed the speed limit and didn't ignore stop signs. We made it home safely too. I don't see how these very differing situations can all be considered doing the right thing solely based on the outcome. The first time, it was luck. If my friend were to continue to make those dumb mistakes, it will eventually catch up with him. I feel like a lot of people who go to seminars are the same way. They do stupid things, and it might be helpful, instead of mollycoddling them and saying, "There there, you did the right thing. I know you were hitchhiking in Mexico without any money while wearing a string bikini and not carrying any weapons, but you're alive, aren't you, so you did the right thing" to actually just have the decency to say, "You made it home safely. You are lucky. You did many wrong things, and here's what they are..."

On some level there is no "right thing" in every situation because it depends on intuition, and it can be useful to analyze situations and outcomes and try to figure out why we had those outcomes, but at what point are SD and MA instructors allowed to say, "You are engaging in risky and stupid behavior." Would this not be beneficial?

I suppose it is somewhat judgemental to look at someone's experiences through a SD lens and tell them they screwed up solely because their techniques might be different than the ones taught in the class... and intuition IS often at play... So what would be good criteria for "doing the right thing"?
I suppose that is my question.

One of the last situations I successfully avoided, I felt like I did the right thing more so than in the past, not because my behavior was any better or because I got home more safely t han at other times, but because I was better able to think under pressure, and to think tactically when making decisions and could explain them unemotionally afterwards. That's one example of criteria, any other ones?

Garland

I'm loving the analogy.
very colorful.

__________________
homo homini lupus