THREAT RESPONSE MODEL
All training in SDT is centred on the "Threat Response Model"
which is the keystone of the Tactical Approach to self defence.
The model identifies the five generic choices we humans have in
a confrontation with another human. There are also an additional
two 'non choices' that may occur that are not depicted (as they
are not conscious choices) - freezing or panic (hypervigilance).
This model is based on the generic threat responses in the animal
kingdom [1].
We have all heard of 'flight or fight' [2].
But in fact any study of intraspecies response to aggression will
show that there are four responses; submit and posture being the
other two. These can readily be observed in domestic animals where
say a dog may rollover and expose its throat and underbelly in submission
or bristles its hair and snarls to make it appear larger and more
threatening (cats are particularly noted for this). The fifth option,
'defuse' is something we humans are only capable of, provided we
maintain presence of mind and are not overcome with the emotion
of the moment and either freeze or go into panic.
One of the roots of our misunderstanding of the psychology of
the battlefield lies in the misapplication of the fight-or-flight
model to the stresses of the battlefield...This application of
animal intraspecies response patterns (that is fight, flee, posture
and submit) to human warfare is, to the best of my knowledge,
entirely new. (Grossman 1996)
Some other defensive tactics systems have similar but different
classification systems for threat responses developed by the creators
of those systems. SDT uses this particular model as it the one used
by science to classify behavioural responses to aggression in both
humans (psychology) and animals (zoology).
The Threat Response Model must be the basis for any system that
takes a Tactical Approach. In any threat situation that has developed,
you must make a fundamental strategic choice as to what option you
wish to pursue. You then determine tactics and use techniques (physical
or psychological) to carry out those tactical choices.
However, given the ever potentially changing nature of a confrontation,
this choice of response (strategic objective) is not fixed. A change
in the circumstances may warrant a revision of the original threat
response choice. You may try to defuse a situation but realize you
are getting nowhere so then attempt an escape. Or it may be that
you could choose escape but are then cornered and in the circumstances
choose compliance etc.
NOTES
[1] As described in Chapter 1 'On Killing'
, by Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman where there is a more detailed
scientific explanation.
[2] "The notion that the only alternatives
to conflict are fight or flight are embedded in our culture, and
our educational institutions have done little to change it. The
traditional American military policy raises it to the level of a
new law of nature" (Heckler 1989).
REFERENCES
Grossman, D. (1996). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning
to Kill in War and Society, Little Brown & Co. Boston USA.
Heckler, R. S. (1989). In Search of the Warrior Spirit,
Berkely California, North Atlantic Books.
|
