11

http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html

http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/intent.htm

The author here makes an interesting claim: No one - not even habitualy violent people - can start acting violently without first taking time to prepare themselves mentally to commit a violent act. And also that during this process their bodies will send nonverbal clues that violence is about to occur. This will happen on an unconscious and physiological level and is therefore impossible to prevent, regardless of any conscious attempts to conceal a violent intent. This is applicable to both cold-blooded criminal violence and violence that occurs as a result of extreme emotions.

As a result - according to the author - these certain nonverbal signs will always precede eruption of violence. (And therefore a person aware of these signs will be able to avoid being victimized in many situations simply by moving out of the proximity of a person whose body displays such signs.)

The author lists only one exception to this rule: people so severely mentally unstable that it is hard to believe they can be anywhere else than locked up in a mental ward.

As to what are these signs in particular: Unfortunately, the author refers here to the book "Manwatching" by Desmond Morris. Outside of the reference to the book, he only lists a few broad categories: "They range from physiological (Skin flush/pale, muscle tension, breathing, etc.,) to motion (how someone moves while under the influence of adrenaline) and to speech (cadence, tone, pitch)."

While I don't know much about this topic, neither from theoretical sources nor (thankfully) from my own experience, I find it surprising because of:

  • The common adage that for most hardened evil-doers killing a man is just like killing a mosquito;
  • The doubt how could such a hard limitation evolve alongside the inclination to use violence (which as history shows humans seem to have) - after all giving early warnings is not something a person inclined to commit violence would likely want and also a hard need for a time for preparations can be lethal when facing a surprise attack and circumstances that demand immediate response in order to survive;
  • Does this also apply to psychopaths? Because from what I was reading about them I find it odd. Yet these are not always found in mental wards, so the author doesn't count them as exceptions.
  • I used to believe that for people with formal training, high experience or simply a fair amount of self-work, a person can bring themselves to acting on a "decision -> action" model, rather than on a "decision -> mental preparations which take time and during which the body sends outstanding phisiological signs -> action" model.

Is it an accepted scientific fact that no man - barring those in mental wards - can commit a violent act without first needing time for mental preparations and without having their body give out easily recognizible nonverbal signs?

gaazkam
  • 2,635
  • 3
  • 15
  • 25
  • 1
    Great question. Two thoughts. 1) I've always heard fist clenching is *the* sign. 2) I would suspect the highly trained, like soldiers, show fewer indications and need very little to no mental preparation, which is the point of training. –  Sep 20 '18 at 00:40
  • @fredsbend As per 1) I'd find it odd - many times, I'd say, people clench fists bc they're angry even though they're NOT going to get violent? As per 2) That's what I'd suspect as well, but the author says this is applicable to everyone, barring these in mental wards. Which is why I find it surprising. – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 00:47
  • "*Even a habitually violent person will have to mentally prepare himself. It may happen very quickly, but it is not instantaneous.*" - author says about habitually violent people. And also: "*Even the most violent person usually needs time to go through recognizable psychological and physiological changes in order to physically attack.*" – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 00:47
  • 1
    I think this question can be summarized pretty easily as: Does fight-or-flight visibly happen before "fight"? – Laurel Sep 20 '18 at 04:51
  • 4
    Uhm... so basically he is saying that everyone before a violent act will do some of the following : and that each person has its own signs... does not sound like anything groundbreaking, I do one of those things at any point in time. It would be different if the author mentioned a specific something that works for anyone. – Giacomo Alzetta Sep 20 '18 at 07:10
  • 2
    Are you doubting that physiological signs always exist, or that a reasonably trained person always has a chance to detect them? – mart Sep 20 '18 at 08:49
  • 3
    @mart I think it is rather that the listed signs have a high false-positive rate (i.e. lots of times you will see them when no violence follows). If so then they are an unreliable guide. – Paul Johnson Sep 20 '18 at 09:21
  • You may be concerned about false positives, I dont see that in the OPs question. Maybe they can clarify. Upon rereading the Q, OP means clearly both of my points & the hard part to test may be "*easily* recognizable" – mart Sep 20 '18 at 11:11
  • It is reasonable. A situation of imminent action is unfolding, the person physically and mentally prepares himself for a high tense situation. How the outcome is, is not too relevant. It's like a boiler containing cold water heating up. If you vent out droplets, or garden hose somebody are different magnitudes of the **same thing**. Based on everything, it can escalate starting from inner unrest, upset words, shouting, a slight push, a strong push, a jab, a beating, a prolonged beating, a strangle, or the usage of a weapon. It's a matter of many factors. – Battle Sep 20 '18 at 11:52
  • 2
    @GiacomoAlzetta As I said, sadly, for a more specific list of signs the author refers to a book. However, this is not the point of my question; my question is: "Are there signs that...", but not: "Do signs ... have these properties?" Because the author claims the existance of sigs that satisfy these properties I can ask my question without having to list them. – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 13:08
  • 1
    @Battle It is intresting that you seem to be using the same exact arguments and parallels the author of this website is using. Might I ask if you are simply referring what he said, or are these parallels widely accepted among experts of the subject? – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 13:12
  • @mart Both your points I guess? And the need of time for preparations, regardless of conscious decision. I was just about to say that I meant the first thing, but I then realized this would be silly: if we focused only on existance, we could connect our violent person to an EEG device and judge from that. However, if the author claims that these signs are so outstanding that any person can easily read them with naked eye (if they know what to look for), that's a far stronger claim. – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 13:16
  • 1
    @PaulJohnson The false positive rate is an interesting question on its own. However, I'm re-reading the original claim on the website I linked and I can't see a double implication being claimed. If I understand the author of this website correctly, he only claims a single implication: IF someone is going to use violence, THEN their body will display these signs. According to the author, the correlation in the other direction is strong enough that other people should base their course of action on their observance of these signs, but it is still not infallible. – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 13:21
  • @gaazkam - To be honest, I thought about it myself and didn't read anything up for it. I derived it from experience and interpersonal knowledge, so I can't really point at any sources. It's surprising though that my arguments are the same as that of the author though. But I can see how his claim makes sense, so maybe that's why. – Battle Sep 20 '18 at 13:40
  • @Battle Especially your use of the "boiler" analogy was striking to me. The author used the same exact analogy [on another page of his website](http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/anger.htm). – gaazkam Sep 20 '18 at 13:56
  • @gaazkam - I see. The "boiling over" part also makes sense, given that it implies a lack of control. However there is also a factor of control, meaning people can choose to restrain themselves, but also choose to unleash what is built up. I think it has to do with "boiling" being associated with being angry, like "boiling with anger" and cartoonish depictions. It's also often used in the Hungarian language to express anger. There are parallels to that physical and mental *preparation* discussed (*preparing* from an imminent attacker does not constitute anger for example). – Battle Sep 20 '18 at 14:10
  • 1
    Violence is defined now in a funny way "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual..." so what signs precede someone pointing a gun at you, even if you don't buy the threats of violence = violence, what signs precede someone pulling a trigger. – daniel Sep 21 '18 at 06:34
  • For those interested in some forbidden field research, I can recommend watching a whole lot of UFC fights. – Roger Dec 03 '18 at 18:15
  • 1
    I have been in many a situation where violence was imminent, both with and without said violence actually "erupting". What I can tell you from that "field research" is that there is little to no chance that you will be actually *surprised* by violent behavior. Very few people -- and I am talking pathological cases here -- will just "erupt into violence" without cause or pretext that will be plainly obvious to bystanders. You don't have to watch for subtle body language. There will be disagreement, shouting, staring down, posturing etc. telegraphing potential for violence loud and clear. – DevSolar Dec 04 '18 at 14:33
  • (ctd.) The question is rather, is moving out of the way of such situations the right thing to do, in the long term. I've calmly stood my ground, on multiple occasions, to the point where fake punches (and in one case, an extensible baton...) were swung at my face... with no actual contact ever being made. Not something I would recommend in the general case and for everybody, but in specific circumstances of "this is where I draw the line" probably the best outcome (think "educational value"). So, to the question as-asked, yes, definitely -- and not subtly at all. ;-) – DevSolar Dec 04 '18 at 14:38
  • @fredsbend - highly trained might also be used to using techniques that are not punches, so even if they give cues that they are going to act, it might not be a preparatory fist vs a rigid but open hand. – PoloHoleSet Dec 05 '18 at 16:01
  • @DevSolar Even if a "cunningly violent" person consciously tries to conceal their violent intent to surprise their victim? I don't mean an escalating argument here. – gaazkam Dec 05 '18 at 17:10
  • @gaazkam: "Cunningly violent" usually implies "planning a crime", in which you will probably be surprised wholesale -- not by the person in front of you erupting in violence, but by the person behind you knocking you down... well... surprisingly. I have never been in or witnessed a situation where someone "surprisingly" went violent with the person he / she was facing. There was _always_ a pretty obvious change in stance or similar prior to the attack. (I like to point to [Zidane](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAjWi663kXc) for studying what I mean with "change in stance".) – DevSolar Dec 05 '18 at 17:17
  • (ctd.) A point I am also making, however, is that this gives "false positives" quite easily. As I said, I've been threatened several times, including insults and fake blows thrown at me. Enough of a "telegraphing" for me to empty my hands, make sure I know my surroundings (incl. checking that no-one is sneaking up behind me, see above), and in one case, my wife making sure she got the kids out of the way. Not enough to justify a preemptive response. *That* line -- between the posturing and an actually delivered attack -- is *much* finer. You have to rely on reflexes and experience for that... – DevSolar Dec 05 '18 at 17:23
  • @DevSolar "*but by the person behind you knocking you down... well... surprisingly*" But we also have other possibilities. A serial rapist who now dates his target, trying to charm her and gain her trust. An assassin who calmly talks to his victim on a party, distracting them from the fact that he now pours poison to their wine. If the claim I cited in my question is true, all such people will involuntarily physiologically warn their targets about their intents, regardless how hard they try not to. Whether their targets can read these warnings is another question. – gaazkam Dec 11 '18 at 19:50
  • @DevSolar Quoting the original claim from the pages I linked to: "*It is not uncommon for a criminal or cunningly violent person to attempt to attempt to hide his intent in other, seemingly safe actions. He deceives you about his true intentions by hiding them in other, seemingly innocent actions and behaviors. However, person who is prepared to engage in physical violence will give off certain physiological signals. Literally his body will betray that fact.*" – gaazkam Dec 11 '18 at 19:51
  • @gaazkam: In the case of truly pathological cases -- where there might be a complete lack of emotion, or even stimulus experienced -- or trained professionals, my observations and experiences don't hold (luckily I have met with neither so far). I'd expect those to have negligible "warning signs" by their very nature (as, obviously, they haven't been caught yet)... – DevSolar Dec 11 '18 at 19:56

0 Answers0