I´ve read in your programs that included in Verbal Tactics is the Theory of Rapport. I have all your audio cassettes, PDR Manual and some of your tapes (Rape Safe, SPEAR) and I wasn´t able to find this concept (maybe is with another name). What does this theory mean?
Its on the CEREBRAL SELF-DEFENSE audio and s/b in the PDR
manual if memory serves me...
You use 'rapport' to create alignment and rapport can be then
used to defuse, de-escalte or distract.
The THEORY OF RAPPORT is inter-connected to CHOICE SPEECH,
NVP & body language principles and of course scenario
It is used at two key moments: as an insertion point for a verbal
defuse, and launching point for a verbal distraction.
I really enjoy the written material in Chu Fen Do. I simply love the generic theoretical base you put on everything regarding PDR. I would not even consider to approach another school of defense with a question like this.
I am wondering a little on a little something when the premise of rapport changes, when you find that you chose the inappropriate role due to an incorrect assessment of the situation. When the priorities change. In training we came to discuss how two specific situational transitions would be handled by the rapport strategy.
Do you have any wisdom as to how to connect the transition in portraying yourself as an unavailable and/or unattractive victim to the rapportgenerating strategy in order to defuse, deescalate or to create a window of opportunity to disarm an aggressor which is suddenly armed and thus you must rethink your strategy. You may have created a wider gap to alignment with assailant and partially allowed yourself less credibility to a Non Violent Posture.
In english: If you meet the world with a don't-mess-with-me attitude, you stand a greater chance of avoiding a situation altogether, but you may have increased the chance of:
* The assailant stabs you right away and THEN take your wallet.
* He wont buy into the NVP.
I don't mean to be nitpicking, but I want to know if there are any "BlauerTM" concepts to bind these together. There are lots of communication prior to the committed confrontation, a great part of which goes to show ability to defend yourself. By "committed confrontation" I don't mean the physical fight, but the moment when one of the parties closes the gap isolating the 1on1 for dialogue, attack and/or sucker punch; ie: when other people present would notice that something is happening between the two. In both armed and unarmed defense the NVP is, in my mind, a ruse which in addition allows for a nonviolent solution. However, with an unarmed assailant, the NVP doubles as a guard through which there is no clear sucker punch which is a considerable convincer in that he should reconsider fighting you, consistent with the Don't-mess-with-me attitude. That he sees no free opening combined with being actively deescalated while looking for it, greatly increases the probability of a nonviolent outcome.
In unarmed confrontation the aggressor would remain on the outside of the NVP, and your behaviour would be consistent and not pitfall to its congruency.
However, In the situations where the aggressor shows a knife, you are faced with at least one paradox. The easiest starting point of CCC against an aggressor with no immediate intention of injuring you is when he has positioned the blade in a seeming superior position against neck or torso and proceeds to dialogue. This is "inside" your NVP. But surely you wont allow him to get there from outside your NVP with a visible blade?
We have in training been training with the mugger approaching you just seemingly walking by and then quickly positioning the concealed blade making a sort of "intimate robbery" (low volume, very narrow space). We've done this lots of times. Credible NVP, dialoge and CCC transition into the delivery system. However, the mugger in that scenario already put us in the position with a static blade and dialogue already served.
So, on to when negotiating a probable unarmed confrontation and the aggressor is reveiled to be armed...
I cannot see a good way of obtaining a good CCC position when the treatening dialogue occurs with some distance. Because an aggressor approaching you from front will, unlike a walkby robber, not assume that he can get intimately close and THEN show the blade. He would if he could, but would be very sceptical if I seemingly suddenly allowed him there. So consider him showing the blade on the outside of your NVP, and starts escalating the situation while working up the adrenaline to hurt you. I would like the situation to be much closer, but the transition into being a victim (to bait for him to assume the even more dominant posture inside your range and making the blade static) is incongruent with the earlier communicative exchanges in which I wanted to communicate that I was an unattractive "messee".
I am not sure this made much sense. I may have stumbled a couple of times when trying to apply the Chu Fen Do vocabulary.
But if there is any place it could possible be considered within a system, it is right here.
WHoa!! The answer is yes. Can I give you an example here & now?
Im away and cant delve into this.
Food for thought: At the heart of the NVP concept is the TROJAN
HORSE metaphor....NVP isnt a distance nor is it a
particualr position, its really a perception.
Therefore it can be applied at any point in a conversation or
confrontation, as long
as its believable and congruous.
Meditate on that for a bit, gotta run.
I don't claim to have the total answer to your questions, but allow me to throw a few ideas at you until the incredibly busy Mr. Blauer gets around to giving us all the definitive TCMS position.
When looking at possible variations, exceptions, etc., remember that you while you have a good basic understanding of some of the components or 'legos' in the TCMS System, you may need just a few more 'legos' to help you along the way.
If you have seen the V.I.P Grappling and Knife tape you know about the Grand Canyon Drill and the Third Base Coach Drill. These drills really help you find more tactical options and also help build confidence and show the power of the S.P.E.A.R and the flinch response.
Take those Drills along with The Night of The Living Dead drill and the Elastic Principle coupled with the grip from hell from the Controlling the Blade Video and the Knife Sensitivity Drill from the Defensive Blade video and you have a few more pieces of the puzzle.
The over riding basic principle though is; The Scenario Dictates. In order to practice thoroughly as Mr. Blauer advocates, you would need to take into consideration times when the Bad Guy tries to cut right through your NVP and dialog, times when dialog and NVP are all that is needed and pure ambush situations which is where the S.P.E.A.R. System comes into play. From the Primal, Protective and Tactical S.P.E.A.R.s flow a wide range of different options.
Then you would go back and isolate Pre Contact Cues, so that you train yourself to be moving sooner or as Tony says, perception speed decreases reaction time. That means you need to have Pre Contact Cues built into your scenario and that you and your training partners understand the TCMS "Be a Good Bad Guy" principle. (Yes there is a video.)
We, (I am a PDR Coach) have been taught to practice more from positions of disadvantage and off balance, than with perfect balance and in a mindset, which is already 'ready' to attack. This is much more appropriate for the street.
Mr. Blauer has stated many times that all defeat is the result of human error. That means that if the assassin catches you off guard and delivers a perfect strike to a vital area, you may be in bad trouble. Good thing Mr. Murphy tends to show up for the Bad Guys as well, they too screw up on occasion.
The point is that if you remain focused on learning and analysis as opposed to winning in your scenario work, you will never have a bad day in training and you will continue to learn and improve. This is priceless education. It sounds from what you have written that you are trying to be very creative and thorough in your work. This is good. Just make sure you are training for credible as opposed to incredible attacks. If you are not achieving the results you want, do what Tony does and go back and isolate the attacks, positions, etc., and then work back up from there.
Just some food for thought and some specific video references for you to ponder.
Hope that helped a little bit.
Mike Suyematsu/PDR Pro
It was somewhat helpful, and I appreciate the effort. Some terms were somewhat possible to appreciate using my imagination. I would think the "elastic principle" relates to being a "magneto" towards the aggressors negative momentum/energy. But most terms (like "Night of the living dead") were went way over my head.
Yes, I am thinking in terms of and looking for legos. It is always essential to know not only the properties of the piece, but also how it relates to the surrounding system. There are so many legos out there that you cannot hope to find the piece you are looking for by scrutinizing every single one there is.
If only there were some PDR overview that showed the interrelation between the concepts, then the tapes could isolate and show the specifics of each piece or at least they would list which pieces were addressed as you allways have an overlap. It would be easier to know which tapes to buy. Currently the material list the pieces, but you don't know how they fit into your PDR.
For this specific situation I am adressing it is partly the fact that we train out-of-balance in a "disadvantageous" position against an "intimate" knife mugging that is the problem. We have isolated that one very well, and we are good at ir, but the application is not general. It assumes a distance, a specific cast of roles, an intent. So the knife defence is not in my mind integral to the general conflict strategy as I haven't got an appropriate theoretical base on the priorities of a standard confrontational distance (we are NOT talking "knife fight" here, we are talking dialog which include a knife). A strategy which does not come at the expense of the standard approach to the unarmed aggressor.
To maintain the Trojan Horse, if you will.
I realize from Tony's answer that the NVP is more of a concept than anything else. The situation dictates what stances can qualify for NVP. The stance I was specifically thinking of was what directly translated into english would be called the "negotiation position". The hands held in a sort of double spear technique with palms facing the aggressor. "NVP" was then perhaps the wrong term.
The essence of that position is to communicate on different level with your aggressor. One of these "channels" is his unconscious/conscious search for a cheap shot/opening to sucker punch you. You will deny him that by moving your arms in a manner that will obstruct a conventional punch, assessing pre contact clues, controlling your physiolog etc.
However, a knife always has a "cheap shot", thus the premise/strategy of the position changes. I guess I am hoping for a negotiation position with a similar ruse.
Although our present knife training (in the mugging situation) was out of balance and would seem to bystanders to be very disadvantageous, this was not the case. It is advantageous because you have a static blade, a good clear/counter/controlling distance and an aggressor engaged in obtaining whatever he wants from you.
Forgive the short message (just finished a 15 hour shift) but have you seen Science of the Sucker Punch or Controlling the Blade? Night of the Living Dead is on CtB (as are specific tactical concerns of NVP)and IMO the BEST info overall on NVP is on SSP. Sorry there's no 'recipie book' here but at least I hope you can consider me the librarian :-)
BTW I'm glad to hear you're not a 'keyboard warrior' but actually put ideas to work in the gym. It's that 'Show me don't tell me' attitude that drew me to Tony more than a decade ago.
Hope to meet you at a PDR someday.
I would be happy to consider you my librarian.
*walking into the library*
"Hi, I am not quite sure what I am looking for. See, there is this concept called NVP, the considerations of which we currently implement in a conflict stance we call the Negotiation position. This works well against an unarmed aggressor and puts me in a position to resolve the situation through dialogue while still putting the tactical situation in my favour.
However, an aggressor with a knife will evaluate distance and position differently in addition to behaving differently.
Is there a theoretical base that cover these changes to the same extent?
I know there are several titles in your library that sort of, but not quite, seem to address the issue.
'Controlling the blade' suggests to me being a knife disarmement/fighting-involving-a-knife tape. Is NVP and confrontation against armed aggressor at a distance covered in this scenario in this title?
'Science of the sucker punch' will in my mind, when knife is involved, feature different axioms translating to another paradigm. Or does this tape cover armed aggressor and emphasize the differences as well?"
The question arose during class when we both handled Negotiation and Mugging situation. "What aspects changes if he should draw a knife?".
My answer to the question was that the knife did not change all that much. The aggressor is still overconfident (albeit for a different reason) and he still looks for openings beyond the hands. It was afterwards that I started thinking:
* Your hands are now viable targets. Not just obstacles.
* To let him have your outlet in his face can no longer disregard his arms as he stabs you. A sensory overload will probably produce a stab.
* You are not going to spear his mass to halt his advance (the negotiation position is good for spear technique). You must entangle, KO or run.
* His behaviour will be different when the fighting starts. If I am advancing he will probably be backing attempting to conquer the airspace between us with the knife.
* The standard negotiation position allows an immediate defense for sucker punch, but perhaps less ideally for knife.
I realize that there may not be as good a solution to knife confrontation that covers all bases to the same degree as for an unarmed confrontation. It IS inherently more dangerous. But I've thought this in the past about other scenarios, and been proven wrong.
I broke out "Controlling The Blade" videos and watched them again.
I believe most if not all of your questions will addressed on this two volume set.
I'm too limited as a writer to properly address all your questions and considerations. I honestly believe that you will be amazed at what you will learn, especially if you are tuned into learning priciples as opposed to techniques.
The "Science of the Sucker Punch" video is a must own for any serious student of Tony's system, but I think your questions will be better addressed on the "Controlling The Blade" videos.
However, Phil is a hell of lot smarter than I am, so take your pick.
Regarding NVP and all of the physical focus. Believe me, I am all about sweat in training. But one of the things that I have found to be very valuable in the NVP concept is the mindset shift from victim to victor. As important as it is to practice the physical NVP be it the "field interview', the "jack benny" , the "I dont know" or any other that you may find yourself in. When I share the NVP principle with my students, I be sure to cover the:
Predator to Prey shift
Me thinking what I am going to do to them vs. me worrying about what they will do to me
Active Target Acquisition, possible targets lighting up on them like LED's
Constantly being on balance even in perceived off balance situation
All of these mind sets are empowering and consider closing on the threat vs. worrying about me getting to my preconceived and contrived NVP. When teaching any principle, I am always reminded by Tonys system of addressing the triad of the system.