We all have ideas concerning violence. What it looks like, where it happens and who instigates it etc. Some of these ideas are based on personal experiences, some on anecdotes, others on media reports and others on simple gut feelings etc. When we fuse these ideas together we create what are called “Models of Violence”, which we try and use to help us predict, identify and avoid violence. For us to be effective in our self-protection and personal safety efforts we need to test these models against six criteria: objectivity, thoroughness, accuracy, timeliness, usability and relevance.

We should try and avoid distortion and bias in our self-defense and personal safety training. If someone has invested 3 years Krav Maga training on how to deal with two handed, front chokes, it will be difficult for them to accept that this isn’t what the majority of violent situations looks like. If we have created training environments and patterns that don’t reflect reality, but rather our personal preferences for training then we are not being objective. If we have convinced ourselves that sparring is an accurate reflection of what actually happens in a violent altercation then we have a distorted view of what real-life violence actually looks like. When we build our models we must be objective, and not try and build them to unfounded, preconceived ideas of what we would like to believe violence looks like. Many people pick up on personal safety tips, and subconsciously build their models around these e.g. if you are being mugged, throw your wallet on the ground away from you – this immediately suggests, that you will be mugged when there are no other people around. Because this safety tips, seems to make sense, and we want it to be able to work, we imagine the scenarios where it will work and make real-life violence conform to this notion. This is not being objective.

Thoroughness. Any information we use to base our ideas of what violence needs to be thorough. This is where the media can seriously distort our idea of what violence looks like. If we are presented with, or only pick up on half a media report of a violent incident, our understanding is not thorough. One of the situational components that often gets lost in media reports is the relationship that a victim has with their attacker(s). The media gets its most “news” out of a violent event that appears random e.g. a random abduction. The truth is that many victims of violence do actually know their assailant, yet this is often not reported on because it is an unknown factor at the time of the initial report. Only understanding half a story does not give us a thorough understanding of violence. If the reports are also inaccurate due to a reporter’s lack of objectivity or lack of awareness of all the facts then our models will be flawed.

Sometimes the most inaccurate information we receive is from people who have experienced violence, and either recall events incorrectly because of the stress of the situation, or re-write how an incident occurred to either absolve themselves of blame, to help them cope emotionally, or to make themselves out to be the hero of the hour. I have heard many accounts of violence where people involved are able to recall the exact number of strikes they threw, their assailant’s reaction to each one etc. In a highly stressful and emotional encounter, many details are lost and the whole event presented us might not actually be accurate.

Information can become outdated. The situations that our parents tried to protect ourselves from when we were children may not be applicable now. We were all probably told as children not to get into cars with strangers, with our parents trying to protect ourselves from the stranger who would be driving round, asking kids if they wanted to get in and come and see some puppies etc. This is probably not the type of situation we have to face as an adult, and if we believe that this situation is what, “not getting into a car with a stranger”, looks like, we will not recognize the situations as an adult that we might be faced with. Before 9/11 there was a fairly standard pattern for hijacking a plane e.g. hijackers force the plane to land and make their demands; after 9/11 we cannot be so sure that this is the model a hijack team will work to.

Our information must be usable. It is interesting to know why an individual develops violent tendencies and/or why they chose mugging people instead of burglary etc. but is this information usable? Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. It is interesting to know that serial killers usually have a history of bedwetting, killing animals and starting fires but these facts don’t help anyone when they are dealing with such an individual. In fact such information can cause overload and noise. However understanding why a burglar chooses that crime, instead of mugging tells you a lot about their general lack of propensity for violence. We must separate what is simply “interesting” from what is “usable” when building our models to get rid of unwanted noise.

Relevance is key. We must be able to apply what is relevant to a situation. This is linked in with usability. Irrelevant information will simply cloud our judgment and slow down our decision making abilities. Not everything is relevant in a situation. In a mugging scenario, there is only one question we really need to ask; if after we hand over the wallet or purse is the assailant likely to still stab or shoot us? The information we require is that which enables us to answer the question. If it can’t help us answer that it is irrelevant.

Whatever your understanding of violence test your ideas and beliefs of what violence looks like against these criteria, and see if they hold up. If not start re-examining and rebuilding your models.