Fight, or not to fight? For me, this is the only real decision a fighter has to make.

 

Everything else is just details.

 

(Fun details maybe, like should I choke’em or pound’em… but details non the less.) 

 

Any Trained fighter is prepared (or believes they are prepared) for the gambit of possible conflict scenarios:

 

If he attacks high, I’ll go low. He comes in hard, I sidestep and use his force against him. Open hand or weapon, all scenarios are thought of, drilled, refined, and re-drilled, by any and all serious martial artists.

 

The only outstanding question is…

 

Is this a fight I want in the first place?

 

The question of thresh hold, where a fighter decides that for one reason or another, a line was just crossed. Where I can clearly discern and say to myself “Something has fundamentally changed from just a second ago to this very moment and now I’m going to destroy my opponent.”

 

Recognizing this thresh hold. Knowing that now it is time to unleash that little killer in your head, and more importantly, choosing to do so…That is a fighters most important decision and he has to know how to make it.

 

Some quick points.

 

This is not exclusively a question for physical confrontations. Anyone who recognizes the interrelationship of all forms of conflict, be they physical, social or even emotional, is also cognoscente of the consequences of a fight.

 

In the street it’s your physical life on the line. In the office it might be your job and at home it can mean your relationship with your family.

 

I am not saying that fighting or conflict is inherently bad. When it is the appropriate solution, conflict can spur advancements in relationships faster, and on a far more signigicant level than anything done by way of the peaceful path.

 

However, it should go without saying that conflict is volatile, and potentially damaging even when appropriate, let alone when it is not.

 

Which brings us back to our initial question, if only a little bit more defined:

 

How does a fighter know when conflict is appropriate?

 

The answer depends on the interplay between the fighter’s status and the governing context within which the fighter, given his status, finds himself.

 

Huh?

 

Don’t worry. I’ll explain.

 

There are two basic states within which a fighter can exist, and they are mutually exclusive:

 

1)      Attacker/Conqueror.

2)      Protector/Defender.

 

Attacker/Conqueror.

 

When a fighter is in Attack mode his goals fall within the realm of conquering and accomplishing.  He is looking to expand his sphere of influence in order to accomplish some form of task and/or achieve a given goal.

 

Put another way; the fighter, in this mode, is looking for a fight.

 

Bring it on!

 

That does not mean he is looking to brawl with anyone. Remember, we’re talking about a trained fighter here. He is looking to fight those fights which bring him closer to his goal.

 

Bring it on opportunity!

 

Fighters in this state are usually loners, not much to lose, much to gain.

 

A Soldier, Police officer, Salesmen, Purchasing agent, and Prosecuting attorney would be examples of a fighter who would often find themselves in the attack state.

 

Protector/Defender:

 

When a fighter is in protection mode, it is because a fight is forcing itself upon him. His goal is not to conquer but rather to survive and protect himself, and those entities he is responsible for. He wouldn’t give chase to a fleeing enemy for his victory is found in the preservation of his current state, not the expansion of it.

 

(Unless, with this particular enemy, the only way to be safe is to finish them off. Terrorists usually fall into this category.)

 

In other words, the fighter is looking to avoid a fight.

 

“No, I am not talking to you. Why do you ask?”

 

Fighters in this state often have what to lose.

 

Their goal being to preserve that which they are charged with protecting. This often results in them fighting only if other safer means of protection, like avoidance, are not an option.

 

Body guards, Parents, Customer support agents, Human resource people, would be examples of fighters found in the protector state.

 

Obviously a fighter’s state can and does change according to context.

 

Therefore a police officer will find himself a protector, if he is off duty watching his kids, and will have to bite his lip when observing a violent fight rather than jump into the fracas.  His family comes first.

 

Similarly, a sales agent will switch into defense mode when dealing with a disgruntled client and have to play conciliator rather than reach into the phone, grab the customers neck, and explain how it’s because of the customer’s incompetence that the problem arose in the first place.

 

(That would be the coolest phone in the world, by the way.)

 

Same goes for the parent who finds himself being attacked without his family around, or the customer support agent getting the same telemarketing call for the n’th time in one week while he is trying to enjoy a quiet dinner after a long day at work.

If he’s a fighter, it’s gonna be…

BONZAI Telemarketer man!!!!!!!

So generally speaking, understanding the roles of Attacker v.s. Protector, will give a fighter the guidelines needed, to know when and why to fight.

 

Here’s my problem.

 

What happens when you factor in Honor?

 

Honour is an intangible, impossible to measure.  This poses an interesting problem.

 

Generally speaking a fighter should be cold and calculating, fighting for clearly defined goals.  Weighing pros and cons of whether or not to to fight is usually a straight forward affair.

 

But when you throw honor into the fray, such clear cut calculations are impossible to make.

 

Is there such a thing as fighting solely for honor, even when tangibles will be sacrificed?

 

To me, such situations are a fighter’s ultimate dilemma.

 

Dilemma to be attacked next post.

If one thing can be clear from what happened to President Bush during his surprise “goodbye” visit to Iraq, It’s that the clothing threat toward public speakers can no longer be brushed aside. Terrorism is a disease which has infected civilized society world wide, and has now spread to the fashion industry.

 

Gone are the days when security can simply pat someone down and see if his pockets are devoid of any weapons. The pocket IS the weapon. A trained clothing terrorist can easily use a pocket to cover his victim’s mouth, serving as a makeshift muzzle to muffle any cries for help. (lint balls can help amplify this effect.)

 

Upset about taking your shoes off at the airport. Well now your not gonna get em back. How do ya like dem apples.

 

If the above seems scary, that’s because it is.

 

But do not fret. The following are some tips any public speaker can use to increase their safety and foil even the most trendy of clothing terrorists.

 

Lets start with the basics.

 

Eye Contact:

This is no longer merely a matter of keeping your audience engaged. It is about engaging the audience. You need to know who is out there and where the next Prada missile may come from. Feel free to stare and intimidate your audience.  It might not get you elected but hey, safety first.

 

Use The Podium:

The podium is a tool for any speaker, no matter their stature, to look dominant and imposing right?

 

Wrong. It’s a place to duck.

 

Let your ego take the shot for you. Frankly, a little blow to the ego of some of these politicians could be just the thing we’re looking for to stimulate clean politics. 

 

Following the shield theme, be sure to hold any papers or index cards directly in front of your face. Even trigger happy shoe slingers are hesitant to fire if they can’t see their targets face. Not because their afraid of inaccurate aim but they want to see that “what the heck” look when they fire. (Sick people).

 

Hand Gestures:

If your using the teleprompter and you don’t have papers to guard you, be sure to use hand gestures.  Subtlety is a thing of the past. Use the “Helicopter” method where you vigorously wave your hands in large concentric circles in front of your face. This might require some cardio training so make sure you hit the treadmill a good few weeks before an important speech. This factor might allow us to see more youngins making it to the fore in politics. (always look for the silver lining.)

 

Don’t be shy to brainstorm with security about extra precautions that may be taken.  For example make it a requirement for all speech attendees to have to ware laced shoes, triple knotted, before being allowed in. This will buy security some time to spot a potential shoe slinger long before he has the chance to fire, and then take him out first with a loafer of their own.

 

This list is certainly not an all inclusive text book, but hopefully it will prepare our next generation of leaders for the dangers of the modern world. A world where great powers must be careful not to taint their humanitarian self images. Even if it means that a far weaker society with ungrateful sentiments, in spite of all efforts invested to free them of despotism and rebuild their country, are no longer afraid to dress to kill.

I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately: Dealing with difficult people.

I have seen it as the subject of workshops and the title of best sellers (doesn’t compare to Social Combat Theory the book, Wink,Wink, Hint Hint.)

 

The truth though, is that the notion of difficult people is really a myth.

 

I know what your thinking. Your thinking, “Myth…Really? Well clearly you haven’t met my co-worker Mr. Rude or Overbearing Boss-Man, and lets not forget Suffocatingly Large Ego guy.

 

True, I have not and I do believe with all my heart that these people are very difficult for you to deal with. (Time for the big But.)

 

BUT,

 

The thing is, if you want to be able to deal with such people you have to understand that these people are not by definition rude, overbearing, egotistical or whatever other type of quality you can’t stand. It is only relative to your personal disposition that they come off that way to you.

 

To put it another way, as far as these guys are concerned, you might come off to them as shy, timid or unsure of yourself.

 

“Wait just a minute” you say. “I am the normal one, they’re the extreme freaks.”

 

True, untrue… Who cares?

 

Lets talk tachles (or Turkey, as you gentiles like to say.)

 

Even if there were some great reference guide you can refer to where your personality is compared to that of your opponents and it clearly references them as being the difficult ones, you will be vindicated but not successful….(how great would that be though.)

 

You need to focus on accomplishing tasks and achieving, nay, even surpassing your goals. And yes, I am assuming your goals constitute more than just vindication.

 

Don’t waste your time frothing at the mouth and dreaming up ways of dispatching your “difficult” colleague. It just clouds your mind and keeps you further from success.  Besides, frothing at the mouth is disgusting and you’ll only manage to make someone else’s difficult people list.

 

Instead you must try to understand your colleague. Not in a couples therapy way but rather as a hunter studies his prey. If you must work with this individual then that means you need them to accomplish your tasks and achieve your goals on one level or another.  In Social Combat terms that means they are your opponent. Study your opponent. Understand their behaviors. Which approaches trigger what kinds of reactions etc. Then: formulate a strategy to elicit the desired reaction, implement it, evaluate your progress in real time, adjust as needed, and continue until you achieve.

 

How to evaluate opponents is a learned skill and is what social Combat Theory is all about. So read the book Social Combat Theory and always look to grow as a Social Combat Artist..

 

If, however, vindication is your ultimate goal, you can always start working on your CPNG: Comprehensive Personality Normalcy Guide. If anyone gives you grief about its legitimacy, just upload it to Wikipedia. That’le show those difficult people. The whole lot of’em!