Skip to main content

Real-World Survival is No Game by Mark Hatmaker

 It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”-Aristotle

It is remarkable how often street self-defense solutions are offered in easy streamlined packages along the lines of “If A does this, you do this…”, or “If a guy is holding a knife like this, you should…”

The flip-side is how often I (and every person who offers him or herself as someone with some self-protection advice) are encountered with questions along the lines of “What would you do if a guy [insert random concrete example here]?”

My response is invariably disappointing, it’s always “I don’t know.” Or the less disappointing, but still essentially the same “It depends.”

These sorts of questions and ABC tactical offerings are closer to acceptable in the combat sport arena as these are games with designated boundaries and limits that come in the form of rules of play, designated playing fields (cage/ring/mat etc.), time limits, start times, prescribed equipment, and on and on.

The street situation allows for no such precisely defined outlines but there seems to be a tendency to still treat it that way and I suspect that that is simply because you can see tools transfer across domains and thusly make the assumption that somehow the two worlds are the same. By this I mean, you may see a punch thrown in MMA, and you may see a punch thrown in the street-very similar right?

Perhaps not.

People who see the two domains as being too greatly similar are falling for the ludic fallacy, or game fallacy. The ludic fallacy is the temptation to see the world or some aspect of it as one might encounter in the game world. In public policy and “social science” there is a reliance on statistical reasoning to make complex decisions as if the great big world “out there” behaved in a similar manner as the casino world where odds can be calculated even if the outcomes are never certain.

Public policy is a very dangerous place to subject to ludic thinking, casino games, like combat sports, have limiting parameters whereas the real-world is such a welter of inter-weaving interdependencies that applying any number suggesting a probability is nigh close to clinical idiocy. Even those “experts” in charge of us all know nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) about what’s over the next horizon because it can’t be known.

But politicians, “experts” in this and that field still make predictions and back them up with fake numbers and we the spectator/subject still pay attention to them and the fake numbers and act as if we have received some actual information-most likely we haven’t.

[For a few in-depth studies of just how wrong me, you, and all experts are see Phillip Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know or any of Nicholas Taleb’s work on randomness. It’s really remarkable how often we look to people who have no idea about what they are talking about.]

Back to punching people.

The ludic fallacy reminds us not to apply game thinking to real-world thinking. Not to apply casino probabilities or “tales of the tape” to the street. Because, let’s face it, it’s hard enough to know the outcome of a fight even in the game world-Rousey vs. Holm anyone?

If stats and data always told the entire tale, then we would think that, particularly in the game world where we do have confining parameters, we would know outcomes before they commenced. We could skip watching UFCs and simply crunch the numbers ala some Fantasy MMA League and know who won what without ever pitting them against one another, but…that ain’t how it works even in the game world.

As another great philosopher said: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.”-Mike Tyson.

So, if we accept the fact that we can make educated guesses (and a guess is all it is) about a sport fight, and even here we can often get it wrong (I’m talking to you world, again, Rousey vs. Holm) why do we think we know so much about how we will respond in the street, the trunk of a car, the crush of festival seating in a fired-upon concert hall?

Cocksure answers in the real-world, the life-or-death consequences world is either the ludic fallacy writ large, or some form of criminal negligence. If we admit we simply cannot know, and then proceed to deliver some pronouncement from on high as if we do know with some level of confidence to someone asking an honest question about what to do when it really, really matters-then we have just defined our character in an unflattering way.

The real-world allows us to train for potentials, to train for likelihoods, to prepare for contingencies, but in all honesty it never allows us to train with a comfortable level of confidence, and nor should it.

Life is not a casino, life is not a cage. Real-life is not a game, and the real predators are un-caged. Our thinking must be similarly un-caged to stand a chance.


Popular posts from this blog

Warrior Awareness Drills by Mark Hatmaker

THE Primary Factor in self-protection/self-defense is situational awareness. Keeping in mind that crime is, more often than not, a product of opportunity, if we take steps to reduce opportunity to as close to nil as we can manage we have gone a long way to rendering our physical tactical training needless [that’s a good thing.]
Yes, having defensive tactical skills in the back-pocket is a great ace to carry day-to-day but all the more useful to saving your life or the lives of loved ones is a honed awareness, a ready alertness to what is occurring around you every single day.
Here’s the problem, maintaining such awareness is a Tough job with a capital T as most of our daily lives are safe and mundane [also a good thing] and this very safety allows us to backslide in good awareness practices. Without daily danger-stressors we easily fall into default comfort mode.
A useful practice to return awareness/alertness to the fore is to gamify your awareness, that is, to use a series of specific…

A Conversation with Master Bladesman, James Keating by Mark Hatmaker

For those not in the know…
James Albert Keating: Master at Arms - Astonishingly good with all small weapons. A graduate of the ESI Bodyguard academy. A knife designer of note. A writer of poem, prose and storied tale. Four books to his name so far. Currently residing on a large Arabian horse ranch in the mountains of Oregon. Keating is the owner and operator of the Comtech Training Studio known worldwide as home to a vast array of fighters, fencers and fast guns. Keating has operated the training hall since 1972 when he first began teaching publicly. James Keating has trained in various combative systems since age 10. Just shy of being sixty years of hard work in the martial arts and tactical fields. His 2018 season of training seminars looks as strong as one of his hand made Bowie knives. His beliefs are as follows: "We advance together into the unknown future with the strength of our abilities sustaining us through thick and thin. Skill banishes fear. Skill is the secret, otherw…

Walk Like a Warrior by Mark Hatmaker

In reading contemporary historical accounts written by soldiers (cavalry and dragoon), settlers, scouts, pioneers, and other citizens of the American frontier 1680s-1880s, I find mention that Native Americans (“Indians” or “Savages” in the accounts) did not walk like “white men.”
Their gait, stride, and foot placement is described often in poetic terms as “light” or “light-footed,” “fleet”, “gliding”, and often times “springy” or “spring-like.” These terms while descriptive of the effect do little to tell us the how or why of the gait.
We can find clues in accounts given by trackers in any of the myriad “Indian Wars” or skirmishes that riddled the continent in the first few centuries of the settling of the nation. The obvious telltale barefoot or soft impression of a moccasin is often a giveaway that you have a Native American track but this is less so in the moccasined foot as more and more Anglo backwoodsmen adopted this footwear.
But there are a few accounts that mention how you can …