Forceful and Demanding VSD

[LenTesta]

When is it acceptable in a verbal confrontation to raise your voice or be firm with your adversary?

When a relatively normal person, who thinks you may have done them a disservice or injustice, then confronts you, will a firm and strong verbal defense be a wise choice?

How do we know when to apply the meek and mild approach or the strong and demanding?

If a larger person confronts a smaller person, a strong and demanding verbal retort by the defender could bring on a fight rather than defuse it. I would assume that the smaller person who is confident and uses words such as; “ I am not afraid of you”; “I am ready to give you a lesson;” or even “bring it on and lets see who walks away,” might not be such a good idea.

In the TC Class at the BUKA, we were discussing how an attacker, who was not hit hard by the defender, would retaliate. If the defender assumed that that if he hit the attacker hard and the attacker did not give up, he would make the attacker angrier. In addition, the doubt of the training is present because the technique did not work. So now, the defender thinks that if I hit him, but not too hard, he will be easy on me when retaliating. The attacker must think that if the defender did not strike back hard enough to hurt him, then that is all that he had to give and in his mind, the defender is weak. Therefore, he will retaliate harder and stronger thinking that he has nothing to fear.

Would this be the same situation with a verbal retort? If you are small and your attacker is big, any show of courage or hostility may make your attacker feel challenged, especially if his friends or family is with him. He now feels that he has something to prove, and will not back down. If the attacker were the same size or slightly smaller than the defender, would it make a difference?

You should be able to size up your confronter and determine what type of verbal response to give.
If you use the wrong verbal response such as threatening or demanding, it will not be able to be reversed.
Should you start with meek and mild, then change to forceful and demanding?

It may not be wise to play your trump card too soon.


------------------
Len Testa

[Allen M.]

It is my thinking that you do not need to raise your voice, but you must be firm and remain committed as soon as you are aware that the interview has started.

When I was younger and would fight, I don't remember raising my voice unless it was to make myself heard over loud music.

------------------
Allen Moulton from http://www.ury2k.com/

[This message has been edited by Allen M. (edited December 20, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Allen M. (edited December 20, 2000).]

[f.Channell]

Len,
Raising your voice would escalate the confrontation as much as sticking your chest out etcetera. I would speak slowly and at the same volume as the adversary. Sometimes people can be diffused by agreeing with them and then stating your own opinion. I think I read this in a book and it was called blending. Theres few things worth arguing about to the point of physical confrontation.
f.

[RA Miller]

Len,

If I'm reading this right I disagree vehemently. I may be thinking of different scenarios than you, but if someone has been chosen as a victim of a violent crime a meek response may guarantee the event by showing the EBG he does indeed have a compliant victim.

Imagine a stranger trying to grab a child in the park. The child should be told to yell as loudly as possible "NO! GET AWAY FROM ME! YOU AREN'T MY DADDY AND I WON'T GO WITH YOU! HELP!"

If the child had been told to not raise his or her voice because the bigger person might get mad and hurt them, that child might never be found.

A small person who is confident is far more intimidating than a big man who isn't. A small person who _isn't_ confident but _is_ loud can change the odds, raise the stakes, get others involve. Loudly shouting "No I don't want to fight you! Get away! Where's the manager!?"

If we're dealing with predatorial psychology, the EBG wants it as easy as possible. Meek acquiescence to verbal threats and the crime is done. Ant step away from meek acquiescence, from saying "No!" to screaming to fighting is a step in the right direction.

If we're dealing with primate social dominance, that's a two player game. Counter challenge is playing the game. Avoiding the confrontation by being concillatory is ceding the game (and may well fit your strategic goals). Raising your voice and challenging the concept is one way to refuse to play the game. "Fight? You think this is high school? Hey, everybody, this kid here wants to fight somebody! Any takers?" It's hard to play the game with everybody laughing.

Len:"If the defender assumed that that if he hit the attacker hard and the attacker did not give up, he would make the attacker angrier"

Not necessarily. If the attacker had picked the victim for easy prey and the victim lashes out, not even with training but with intent, the attacker is often so surprised that the victim gets a few beats to follow up or run or yell. Almost every officer I know who has gotten clocked were so surprised that the perp got a couple of extra shots in. And the other side- I've been jumped and countered so quickly (not bragging here, but after a decade or two of infighting training you start to flinch towards the threat)that the EBG, who should have had all the initiative froze completely.

Rory

[LenTesta]

Please forgive me for being silent the past 11 days.
I have been very busy renovating my house during the hoilidays and I haven't had much time to read the forums.

Happy New Year to all.

I hope that 2001 will be a good year for everyone.


Rory,
I agree that children should be loud and demanding if an adult is trying to abduct them. Calling attention to a possible abduction is the best line of defense.

This thread is in reference to adult confrontations. When two adults square off, we are taught that we should try to diffuse the situation. In most cases, diffusing the situation by using a calm voice and non-threatening words, the escalation of the argument to a physical threat can be avoided. But this does not work all the time. Some will back down if they perceive that you will not escalate the argument. However, what can we do about the one who will taunt you even more if he recognizes that you are trying to persuade him to back down? When do we determine whether we have come across an individual who will back down if we were belligerent instead of meek?

I know of a situation where a group confronted a guy I know. He tried to talk his way out of a fight with conciliatory words. The leader (the person doing most of the talking) was taunting him with what is clearly the most aggravating phrase that a man could utter to another…calling him that other word for cat. The aggressors used the phrases that demean or directly challenge. This guy tried to agree with the leader, saying in effect that; yes, he was a **** and he didn’t care if anyone else thought that way. The more he tried to diffuse, the angrier the leader was. Eventually the group backed off, but the leader did not. He attacked the man with a sucker punch. The altercation ended because the guy who was punched did not get up.

Would the leader have punched the man if he had not tried to diffuse the argument? Would this guy have backed down if the defender had said that he was willing to fight? What if he said to the leader, “ I really do not want to fight. You have many friends with you and I cannot fight everyone. But if you want to try to take me on, one on one, you will get a fight you will remember for the rest of your life?”

Would that phrase work in some situations? How do you know when to be counter-aggressive instead of passive?

I believe that sometimes, the confident and aggressive retort can work in some confrontations. Can we figure out what types of confrontations this will work on, and what types of individuals that it will work on?


------------------
Len Testa