Pragmatism and Ideals

[Hdier]

I have been thinking deeply about how my pragmatic nature interacts with my ideals lately, and discovered a very odd interaction. I will use an example (the best way I explain things) to explain:

In the beginning of the movie Pirates of the Carribean (1), there was a fight between Jack (a pirate) and Will (a blacksmith). At the end of the fight, Jack pulls a pistol on Will, who protests that he cheated.

Here is where my seeming conflict begins: I would fight against Jack (a pirate who steals, murders, and probably rapes) because my morals demand it. However, I would have pulled a pistol on him long before Jack did, as that would be the best way to not only survive, but win the fight. I do not see that as immoral, simply pragmatic. What do you think (and if you could clarify what I mean better I would be supremely grateful)?

[Question Everything]

I'm not sure if I could ethically kill someone without KNOWING that the person was a theif, murderer, and rapist, unless I was certain that they were trying to kill me at the moment. But if I did know that this person had killed in the past and would likely kill again, I see no problem in taking the person's life to better the world.

As for cheating in the fight... if I felt justified in killing someone, I don't see why my strategies should be limited by ridiculous rules. In a fight for survival, I don't think rules limiting the struggle to the physical realm (or the realm of swordfighting) are necessary; I ought to be able to use everything I've got to reach my goal, provided that goal is a moral one. That includes my brain, the emotions of my opponent, and things in the environment around us.

Perhaps it is even arguable that, if killing this person would be a moral good, it would be ultimately IMMORAL for you to not do everything you could to kill this person.

[Paul V]

It depends on the preestablished rules of the encounter. If it was an official duel, then yes, he cheated. If it was an all out fight, then no, he didn't. Everything goes in that scenario.

And pulling a gun on someone isn't necessarily killing. It's simply gaining the upper hand. My motto is "Never kill another person unless they are threatening your life or the life of an innocent". And if Jack backs off when I pull a gun, then I wouldn't kill him, only make him do as I say.

[Hdier]

Question Everything: I was speaking hypothetically, as I would have problems killing anyone, even if they are evil.

Paul V: It was a fight because Jack had broken into Will's house. Therefore, there was no pre-established rules. However, I never said I would kill him, and I wouldn't because I avoid killing at all costs.

[rwyatt365]

I view myself as imminently pragmatic. In this fight between Jack and Will (or a corresponding one in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones shot the sword wielding Arab), where a gun is available, why not use it? Whether simply for intimidation, or for killing, using a "show stopper" is the best way to end a confrontation quickly and with minimum bloodshed. "Do the honorable thing" is the domain of "E"s.

[Paul V]

I agree with rwyatt. Besides, you have to obey the rules of the encounter. If they're none, then they're none!

[danalaina]

here's pragmatism for you:

though i would only kill in self-defense, i would aim to kill. i might have a hard time dealing with it later, but i want to be sure of my physical safety at that moment, and i know beyond a doubt that i couldn't afford the legal fees that could arise later from an assailant's spurious litigation.

[Paul V]

here's pragmatism for you:

though i would only kill in self-defense, i would aim to kill. i might have a hard time dealing with it later, but i want to be sure of my physical safety at that moment, and i know beyond a doubt that i couldn't afford the legal fees that could arise later from an assailant's spurious litigation.

I agree. Once I set my mind to kill, I won't miss. Besides, if he's alive and tried to kill you once, he might return again. I wouldn't be able to sleep if I knew that.

It is also probable that I might kill the killer of someone I love. I am not sure at the moment. It's about a 50-50 chance.

[logos]

I would without doubt pull the gun and fire or stab him with a hot poker or spill molten metal in his direction or throw ash in his eyes. What point is thinking outside the box if you don't utilize it?? Would I kill him in self defense? Absolutely, with intent and without hesitation. Would I feel guilt or regret? Absolutely not. I would be resolved the moment I pulled the trigger or plunged my sword into his chest.

I could learn later that he was [considered] 'a good man' with a wife and seven kids and was only trying to feed them or that his gun wasn't loaded or that he never killed any of his victims in the past and it still would not matter. I would feel no more responsible for his death than if he died from jumping off a cliff. It was his decisions, the path he chose to walk which ended his life, not mine.

[Hdier]

Paul V: I would have absolutely no idea if I would hit or miss, because I've scarsely even touched a gun in my life. If I was ever to take classes on marksmanship, however, I would probably be the same way.

Logos: I see what you are coming from, but I would feel pain (NOT guilt or regret) later, simply because I killed a man. I do not like killing, weapons, war, etc., and while I understand that most people don't, I think that violence might affect me a little bit more than most people, after the fact. But, while the person was trying to kill me or whatever, I would force myself to be completely emotionless, and deal with emotional baggage later.

[rwyatt365]

I would without doubt pull the gun and fire or stab him with a hot poker or spill molten metal in his direction or throw ash in his eyes. What point is thinking outside the box if you don't utilize it?? Would I kill him in self defense? Absolutely, with intent and without hesitation. Would I feel guilt or regret? Absolutely not. I would be resolved the moment I pulled the trigger or plunged my sword into his chest.
As cold-hearted as this might sound to some, I would feel exactly the same way. It's not that I don't value life (I do), it's just that I will have made a decision at that point and will follow through. Having made that decision, I will have taken into account what the consequences are and will have accepted them as such – I pull the trigger, that person is dead, I'm safe, end of story.
Logos: I see what you are coming from, but I would feel pain (NOT guilt or regret) later, simply because I killed a man. I do not like killing, weapons, war, etc., and while I understand that most people don't, I think that violence might affect me a little bit more than most people, after the fact. But, while the person was trying to kill me or whatever, I would force myself to be completely emotionless, and deal with emotional baggage later.
If the scenario is kill, or be killed (to me) there is no emotional baggage, this is a matter of survival – and I intend to survive, whatever the cost. Cold – perhaps, practical – absolutely. If someone is coming at me with intent to do great bodily harm, I cannot be concerned with what the circumstances of that person's situation are (they certainly aren't concerned about mine). What is of immediate import is; how might I prevent myself from being harmed? After the fact…as logos says, that person chose the course, I just sealed the destination.

[PortInStorm]

But you have to take into account that anytime a person brings a (known) weapon into a situation, it will (almost) inevitably become more violent. There've been many clear studies on this- because the weapon has been associated with violence again and again, and because you've just "stepped up" the conflict to life and death, the altercation will escalate. Plus, it's mistake to think that risk to you ends just because the conflict does, or because the other person dies. There are thousands of others waiting behind him/her to take a stab at you (pardon pun). Just something to consider.

[rwyatt365]

But you have to take into account that anytime a person brings a (known) weapon into a situation, it will (almost) inevitably become more violent. There've been many clear studies on this- because the weapon has been associated with violence again and again, and because you've just "stepped up" the conflict to life and death, the altercation will escalate. Plus, it's mistake to think that risk to you ends just because the conflict does, or because the other person dies. There are thousands of others waiting behind him/her to take a stab at you (pardon pun). Just something to consider.
Your points are well taken, and I won't deny that the introduction of weapons into an altercation increases that potential for violent outcomes. But I think the scenarios that you're presenting are outside of the scope of the original supposition; i.e. you are one-on-one with an assailant that intends to do you harm, you are armed and they may, or may not be.

But even given your expansion of the circumstances – I, as the assaulted party, have to pretty quickly have to determine the level of threat from my assailant, my chances for unarmed success, any peripheral threats, the possibility of retaliation (either from the assailant, or others), possible escape routes and a host of other things. In the case of Jack Sparrow and the blacksmith, Jack didn't stand much of a chance and he certainly wasn't in a "Jack-friendly" environment. His best bet was to draw his weapon and be prepared to use it.

Nothing is certain, and every act has consequences. All one can do is to weigh the pros and cons and make what one determines to be the best choice and live with the resulting outcome (whether it be to threaten to kill a man, or to get the snot beat out of yourself).

[PortInStorm]

I see where you're going, and I'm incredibly protective myself. However, you assume that it's killed or be killed- there is another option. As we see in the ensuing "Pirates..." movies, often Jack talks his way out of situations, ie. convincing the opponent to cease violence, at least for the moment. It certainly is not practical in all situation, and there's a lot to lose if you're wrong. However, there's also a lot to lose by certainly increasing the violence (ie. permanently losing the option of a peaceful outcome), or triggering group wars.

[logos]

But you have to take into account that anytime a person brings a (known) weapon into a situation, it will (almost) inevitably become more violent. There've been many clear studies on this- because the weapon has been associated with violence again and again, and because you've just "stepped up" the conflict to life and death, the altercation will escalate.

The situation as presented was already life threatening.

Plus, it's mistake to think that risk to you ends just because the conflict does, or because the other person dies. There are thousands of others waiting behind him/her to take a stab at you (pardon pun). Just something to consider.

The consequences may be numerous if you kill an assailant. He may have friends or family that will seek some kind of vengeance as you suggest or you might just be randomly selected by another criminal or maybe you were 10 minutes away from a fatal heart attack anyway. Who knows? All of this is irrelevant when you're looking down the barrel of a gun. This isn't something you sought but you're forced to deal with it regardless. If it brings more violence, you'll be forced to deal with that too.

I don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion. Maybe there are some pacifists out there who would rather face death than harm another and I can respect that, but it's definitely not the answer for me.

[PortInStorm]

1. My understanding was that they were fistfighting (I assumed not to the death), and Jack pulled a gun. Not an initially life-threatening situation UNTIL Jack pulled the gun.

2. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just a realist that knows you can always fight, but if you can avoid or talk your way out, it's better. There's a really great book by Gavin de Becker called "The Gift of Fear"... he's one of the States' best experts on violence of all kinds. He definitely recommends escape or avoidance if you possibly can. Even when you're looking down the barrel of a gun, you still have options. If you remain in a one-down position, they have less of a visceral reaction to kill you. Certainly they will probably do what they came to do, but you might escape alive. If you pull a gun too, the assailant now feels threatened, and will almost certainly try to shoot you. Unless you're a marksman, you likely have less skill than they, and they're more likely to kill you first. Your choice.

I realize that we're also tapping into our countries' different attitudes concerning guns (Canada and you're from the States?) and the Iraq conflict, no doubt.

[Hdier]

No, it was definitely life-threatening. They were fighting with swords, at one point Will (the blacksmith) was even using a sword that just had it's end in the fire!

However, I agree that talking your way out of a situation is better, even though it wasn't possible in the situation.

[rwyatt365]

So, given the original scenario, a life-threatening situation was met with deadly force - not equal in effectiveness (sword vs. pistol), but the end result would be the same.

To me, no thought involved - pull the pistol and be prepared to pull the trigger. Case closed.

[Hdier]

Sort of, but he didn't pull out the pistol for a while ('sentimental' reasons; there was a specific person he wanted to kill with it). He was originally using a sword. I would've pulled out the pistol ASAP-more efficient.

[PortInStorm]

Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I'm not speaking from morals. Putting down your weapon reduces your risk- empirically-supported. See the classic study by Deutsch and Krauss (1960) where threat lead to increased conflict. Once a person presents a threat, "saving of face" enters the equation, leading to increasing determination to win (not just for the gain, but to save face), and to respond with counter-threat = arms race. Now there ARE no options but injury or death for one party- no compromise, no communication. And though you don't care if the other one dies, the odds are that you will instead. Doesn't sound like a better way to me.... Putting down your weapon or not escalating takes "saving of face" out of the equation. Example: Will is still in the other two movies. The sword fight caused Jack to escalate to a gun. Partly because Will ceeded, he lived. Had will pulled out something bigger and faster....

Certainly the suggested "kill or be killed" route takes no thought- it comes from the lower brain (instinctive, animal-like), with the corresponding inferior results = increased danger, dying with bravado intact. Sorry, I'll stop with this train of thought, do what you will.

[logos]

1. My understanding was that they were fistfighting (I assumed not to the death), and Jack pulled a gun. Not an initially life-threatening situation UNTIL Jack pulled the gun.

2. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just a realist that knows you can always fight, but if you can avoid or talk your way out, it's better. There's a really great book by Gavin de Becker called "The Gift of Fear"... he's one of the States' best experts on violence of all kinds. He definitely recommends escape or avoidance if you possibly can. Even when you're looking down the barrel of a gun, you still have options. If you remain in a one-down position, they have less of a visceral reaction to kill you. Certainly they will probably do what they came to do, but you might escape alive. If you pull a gun too, the assailant now feels threatened, and will almost certainly try to shoot you. Unless you're a marksman, you likely have less skill than they, and they're more likely to kill you first. Your choice.

I realize that we're also tapping into our countries' different attitudes concerning guns (Canada and you're from the States?) and the Iraq conflict, no doubt.

The fight was not initially a fist fight. It was a sword fight, threatening loss of life or limb. --unless I am mistaken and not you.

Despite how it may seem as criminals seem so often to have guns (especially on tv), they generally have no skills or training with them. I don't have any source to cite for you so you'll have to look it up if you want this confirmed, but i have seen sources cited that indicate you're more likely to survive if you resist criminals. I'm sure pacifists and gun control people will have some opposing data to cite, so I'll just go with what's right for me rather than relying on the opinions of other -- and that is most definitely fighting for my right to determine my own future rather than hoping for pity or rationale from a criminal.

[PortInStorm]

The fight was not initially a fist fight. It was a sword fight, threatening loss of life or limb. --unless I am mistaken and not you.

Despite how it may seem as criminals seem so often to have guns (especially on tv), they generally have no skills or training with them. I don't have any source to cite for you so you'll have to look it up if you want this confirmed, but i have seen sources cited that indicate you're more likely to survive if you resist criminals. I'm sure pacifists and gun control people will have some opposing data to cite, so I'll just go with what's right for me rather than relying on the opinions of other -- and that is most definitely fighting for my right to determine my own future rather than hoping for pity or rationale from a criminal.
No, I was mistaken.

[Br3nti5]

too many variables to take into account - but in the scenarios posted its kill or be killed so yes I would do whatever it takes to continue living. Once weapons are drawn you have to ask yourself 1 questions.

1. Is my life more important then theres? its kill or be killed, and every second you hesitate to kill you are giving them more time to kill you.

In other scenarios this isn't completely correct - but once again i'm taking this from the stand point of the armed combat in a actual fight where walking away isn't an option. Only you can decide in the moment shit hits the fan what your going to do or not do.....


my 2 cents.

[rwyatt365]

So, it seems that in life/death, kill or be killed situations "pragmatism" (and self-preservation) is of utmost importance. In less intense situations one has the luxury of a more reasoned "tactical retreat" approach.

[yondyr]

We've extrapolated into our personal lives and being threatened. My problem with resorting to violence are the consequences. Should I shoot or otherwise injure someone who was threatening me, I'd have to consider the fact that they're likely to be from a violent background and that I'd be under threat from their friends or relatives from then on. So I'd suggest making sure the job was done cleanly with no comebacks and the body disposed of - given the sophistication of the investigative forces these days, a very difficult job. Pragmatism in my case would involve fleeing and abandoning my possessions and ideals temporarily.

[Paul V]

Paul V: I would have absolutely no idea if I would hit or miss, because I've scarsely even touched a gun in my life. If I was ever to take classes on marksmanship, however, I would probably be the same way.

I have never touched a real firearm before, but I know with almost absolute certainty what will happen in the event I'm attacked.

I have a technique I use in order to be prepared for a potential attack. I vividly imagine myself being assailed by an enemy, and I focus on blocking everything around me but the presence of my assailant. I visualize him/her clearly, and I do my best effort to scare myself. Immediately, I feel my senses growing keener, my blood pressure increasing and my mind racing even faster than normal. Thoughts begin racing through my head, but in an orderly fashion, and they are all "whispering" me ways to take down my enemy. Examples of this would be snips of conversations I heard, or advice I read once many years ago. Also, my mind immediately begins surveying my surroundings, letting me know of what I can use in my defence.

However, doing this requires a conscious effort on my behalf, and depending on the results I wish to acquire, I might end up slightly tired, fatigued or exhausted. That's how I know that if I ever shoot a gun, I will kill someone, unless I can will myself to shoot at another part at the last moment. It's difficult for me to do so, because when I enter "Survival Mode", I function almost purely by instinct. To me, that's Ni to the max.

[Hdier]

I throw darts, and tried the same ting, with roughly the same effect (of course, I pretend the dart board is a dangerous enemy). It hasn't helped me much, but if it ever works for you, wonderful. Also, in a real combat situation the factors that I cannot yet imitate with my mind and imagination may cause me to work better with a firearm. (also tried it in video games; pretty much the same effect; caffeine works really well in making me better at pretty much everything, though)

[yondyr]

Bravo Paul, and if there were more than one assailant?

[blueback]

Here is where my seeming conflict begins: I would fight against Jack (a pirate who steals, murders, and probably rapes) because my morals demand it. However, I would have pulled a pistol on him long before Jack did, as that would be the best way to not only survive, but win the fight. I do not see that as immoral, simply pragmatic. What do you think (and if you could clarify what I mean better I would be supremely grateful)?

Well, remember that Will also shouts "AVAST!" as soon as he gets onto a ship, so his conception of pirating is a bit romantic. Besides, I don't think Will had a gun around.

As to the philosophical aspect, I think that violence should only be used in respons to a situation that demands it. However, once a person does something that convinces me they are no longer open to the possibility of compromise, it is okay to jump to violence faster then them.

Just because you have to wait for someone else to throw the first punch doesn't mean you have to let it hit you. And once they do throw that punch, they have lost any moral high ground they might have had.

The law does make things more complicated. In Jack and Wills time period there aren't many litigation options open to them, so they have to settle things between each other. Today there are too many cases of burglars breaking into a home, hurting themselves, suing the homeowner, and receiving a settlement because it's cheaper to pay them off then to go to court and win the case. So if someone tries to attack you, but you are a better fighter then them and you win, they can sue you for battery. If they are more injured then you are they could easily win.

So the matter of "self-interest" is more complicated now then it would have been for Jack and Will.

[Hdier]

Those cases are insanity, and if we had any competent judges they would be overruled. The f***ing person was trespassing! How much idiocy do we have in this country!?

[rwyatt365]

Those cases are insanity, and if we had any competent judges they would be overruled. The f***ing person was trespassing! How much idiocy do we have in this country!?
Unfortunately, a lot. As blueback says, there have been numerous cases where burglers have successfully sued their "victims" because they got hurt while robbing someone.

As my ex-wife one said to me, "The law is not about justice it's about 'The Law', whoever interprets it best, wins".

[Hdier]

Amen. Our society is really f***ed up.

[logos]

The law does make things more complicated...Today there are too many cases of burglars breaking into a home, hurting themselves, suing the homeowner, and receiving a settlement because it's cheaper to pay them off then to go to court and win the case. So if someone tries to attack you, but you are a better fighter then them and you win, they can sue you for battery. If they are more injured then you are they could easily win.

So the matter of "self-interest" is more complicated now then it would have been for Jack and Will.

I don't know laws elsewhere, but here in Florida you're completely protected from criminal and civil lawsuits in situations where its justified to use deadly force. In your home or business, your innocence is presumed - you need not say anything except that it was a self defense shooting. Only if the authorities have reason to believe the contrary can they make an arrest, otherwise you have a nice settlement coming to you from the agency for false arrest.

Wrap your mind around this. You carry a CCW permit. You're at the 7-11. A guy comes in with a shotgun demanding money. You drop your big gulp, pull out your pistol and fire a few rounds at the guy... one misses and hits the cashier or another customer standing nearby (because neither were smart enough to duck or run when the saw the shotgun :P). Whether the criminal lives or dies, or even gets caught.. you are not liable for any damage or injury -- The criminal is. You are immune to both criminal and civil prosecution. The liability lies entirely on the criminal who caused the chain of events.

[Hdier]

But then, you still have to prove things. I doubt it's as simple as you imply, though if it is, then there is hope in America!

[Paul V]

Bravo Paul, and if there were more than one assailant?

I have imagined that as well.

Usually, two assailants fall under the 3rd or 4th category of my assailant classification:

1) People I can subdue without endangering their lives. Low effort on my behalf.

2) People I can subdue by endangering their lives. Great effort on my behalf.

3) People I can subdue only if I outsmart them. Maximum effort on my behalf.

4) People I can't subdue. Deploy evasive manouvers and escape mechanisms. Maximum effort.

5) People I can't subdue, and of whom I cannot escape. Deploy traumatised dettachment. Over maximum effort.

[Hdier]

3+ would be the fifth, then?

[Paul V]

Nope. Still 4th. I have to be bound and/or grappled in order for me to consider myself to be in 5th. I have a high degree of self-confidence when facing danger.

[Hdier]

And where does that confidence come from, hmm?

[quentin]

The last time a thug tried to pick a fight with me (a couple of months ago; he was drunk after a rugby match) I successfully dodged it by outsmarting him.

[Hdier]

Outsmarting someone when he's drunk isn't very hard, but (I think) most people don't bother to try to figure out what to do when they're being mugged. Yay thinking!

[Paul V]

And where does that confidence come from, hmm?

The sharpening of my senses/intelligence I mentioned earlier, my survival instinct and being tall and big. Oh, and unarmed fighting training helps too. But I suppose I won't know any of this for sure until I'm in a real fight.

[Hdier]

Dang, you put in tha last sentence. El well.

Were did you get unarmed training? I want to get it, but have not found a credible enough place. (Was it something like Ti-Quan-Do, an organization, private tutor)

[Paul V]

Dang, you put in tha last sentence. El well.

Were did you get unarmed training? I want to get it, but have not found a credible enough place. (Was it something like Ti-Quan-Do, an organization, private tutor)

I took Tae-kwon-do for 2 years when I was young, and it was a group class in my town's gym (back when there was only 1 gym around), and I spent several years studying unarmed fighting techniques. I don't have much practice, and that's why I said I won't know until I test my knowledge.

[axiomtangent]

Niteresting topic...

On the subject of fighting with honor versus pragmatic neutralization:

There are multiple elements at play with the encounter in Pirates, but I'll address the ones I think best apply here. The fight between Jack and Will was not, in their minds, life or death. A practitioner of any martial art (or science if you prefer) does not approach any conflict with the concept of failure in mind. Each opponent believes he will win, kind of like the idea: I will never fail, though I have failed in the past. Therefore both opponents believed themselves to be capable of defeating the other, hence little or no risk.

This is an elaborate extension of the "least abrasive means" concept. Most of you stated that avoidance of violence was the best plan, and I agree. Once that fails you would attack each threat based on its severity; a rabid poodle would be dealt with less severely than a rabid Doberman.

There is also the respect factor; some opponents just aren't worthy of your best effort or time to dispatch, they get the pragmatic attack of convenience.

There is also the implied duality of nature that I believe was an underlying theme in the movie for both Jack and Will. The honorable rogue and the roguish hero. I can relate to that element myself as I find a bewildering amount of duality in my own thoughts and actions.

Once again I find myself lost in my own point... damn. Anyway, you could say that armed conflict is my business and I can tell you that it takes training to overcome the natural instincts that we all possess, you are either prepared for violence consciously or you rely on your inherent natural instincts to keep you alive. The latter can be risky, because most people fall into the flight category and that usually translates to inaction instead of running, like a deer in the headlights.

The visualization method is good, but there is no substitute for good old fashioned sweat and bruises earned muscle memory.

O.k. now ya'll can shoot some logic holes in my post. ready... aim...

[Hdier]

Fire

Assuming that you will never lose is unrealistic and dangerous. If you always assume you will win, you will not preform at optimal levels. If you are scared that you may lose than that can actually enhance your performance, though I'm not saying that you should be constantly worried about losing either. I don't think that most people think in terms of 'I'll never lose', however/but I do not have any experience fighting.

[axiomtangent]

Point taken. The possibility of failure is taken into account, but only during training, which is training's purpose; to prepare with as little risk as in practical for a real encounter. Once engaged, the thought of failure must be removed from your mind. Any physical encounter (or any contest arguably) is really about imposition of will, whoever "wants it more" will most often prevail. I know there are laws of physics and a myriad of other factors to consider, those elements can be overcome if the will to win overrides the desire to survive, which in a violent encounter can, ironically, result in survival despite the odds. As you may have deduced by now I'm less academic (I'm hoping to remedy that soon, by the way) in my thinking than a majority of the board, but I have witnessed this occur over and over in practice. Once an opponent has accepted the possibility of defeat their drive will falter and regardless of whether they are physically superior in either number or ability they will likely lose. Please don't take this as a disagreement with your logic, just an elaboration of what I was trying to express. I trully hope that my inhibited written expression doesn't detract from the flow of the board, I sincerely want to participate and learn from these discussions.

[rwyatt365]

Assuming that you will never lose is unrealistic and dangerous. If you always assume you will win, you will not preform at optimal levels. If you are scared that you may lose than that can actually enhance your performance, though I'm not saying that you should be constantly worried about losing either. I don't think that most people think in terms of 'I'll never lose', however/but I do not have any experience fighting.
Unrealistic, perhaps. Dangerous, not so much (I think).

If one truly believes that they will win (regardless of the "reality" of the situation) that will probably enhance their ability to function in a sphere of rationality and calm, rather than a sphere of anxiety and panic (which I would presume is where fear will place you). Sure, being scared increases adrenaline and (temporarily) will decrease awareness of pain, and heighten certain senses. But I think the trade-off is the loss of focus and composure to put together an effective response to the threat.
Point taken. The possibility of failure is taken into account, but only during training, which is training's purpose; to prepare with as little risk as in practical for a real encounter. Once engaged, the thought of failure must be removed from your mind. Any physical encounter (or any contest arguably) is really about imposition of will, whoever "wants it more" will most often prevail. I know there are laws of physics and a myriad of other factors to consider, those elements can be overcome if the will to win overrides the desire to survive, which in a violent encounter can, ironically, result in survival despite the odds. As you may have deduced by now I'm less academic (I'm hoping to remedy that soon, by the way) in my thinking than a majority of the board, but I have witnessed this occur over and over in practice. Once an opponent has accepted the possibility of defeat their drive will falter and regardless of whether they are physically superior in either number or ability they will likely lose. Please don't take this as a disagreement with your logic, just an elaboration of what I was trying to express. I trully hope that my inhibited written expression doesn't detract from the flow of the board, I sincerely want to participate and learn from these discussions.
I quite agree with axiomtangent; desire, will, mental toughness, "guts" are all things that can "tilt the odds" in favor of the lesser combatant (on paper). Some of these can be trained in through repetition and regimen, some come through indoctrination and social conditioning. Once a combatant has accepted defeat as a likely outcome, their chances of victory are likewise reduced.

PS – axiom… don't downplay your skills or aptitude. I don’t detect any deficit in either. Post away and don’t sweat the theory of logical argument, or obtuse grammar. Be yourself and speak your mind! I (at least) appreciate your input, as I'm sure we all do. we all get corrected at one point or another! :thumbsup:

[Hdier]

I definitely agree that being confidant can help, as surety of winning has caused me to win on multiple occasions (though not in a physical fight). What I was trying to say was that you do need to admit when someone is better than you, and allow a little bit of yourself to not have confidence. Of course, the part of you that has confidence will always attempt to destroy this small nugget of doubt, and knows that that isn't actually part of you, that it comes from an out side source.

My doubt takes the form of an extremely small (read: smaller than my thumb tip) baby, who is incredibly mature and well educated for a baby. As in, as mature and well educated as me. However, whenever I interact with him I shrink down to his size.