CycleFish.com

Posted: 8/6/2010 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ]

My first reaction when I first heard of the “Ground Zero” mosque was an extremely visceral one. I was enraged to the point of nausea and still have a difficult time thinking about it without getting into a struggle with myself over the principle vs. appropriateness viewpoints of the situation. Most who know me know that if I am nothing else, I am an unapologetic and inarguably vehement patriot. And before anyone pipes up to question my authority to speak, please know that I took an oath and served and a veteran of the U.S. Navy. I put mine on the line against what the radical believes.

 
We are a nation with planks of our foundation steeped in religious freedom. Just as there are no caveats to any of our other inalienable freedoms, our right to freedom of religion is one of the ideals that we have shed our blood to protect. Countless American warriors have laid down their lives to protect that which is sacred to our beliefs of self reliance, self preservation, self governance and religious freedom. So why should this change now?
 
Knowing what I know about the fanaticism of those who readily sacrifice themselves to further the mission of having the world submit, there is little doubt that this mosque would be a future sight of significance if the world was to submit. It will be the sight of the turning point. The first major blow to the great demon of civilization in their eyes. However, if we remain steadfast in our devotion to the freedom we have lost great lives and patriots to protect, it will never be anything more than a standing testament to the tolerance and freedom we stand for.
 
Repulsive as it may be to our sensibilities, it pales to the hypocrisy we would perpetrate if we were to forbid it’s existence. We are a nation of laws. We are not a nation of convenient guidelines that wax and wane with the pain of what has been or what may be. The battle is not in the name on the building or the activities within. It is with ensuring that we protect that which allows such an affront to our sensibilities. It is with ensuring that we do not dilute our concentration of freedoms with the liabilities being free allows us to pursue.
 
Let’s remain focused on what matters. We the people control this nation. Our power and authority lies in the ballot to speak to those who represent us. We cannot let them forget that they serve us, and if they do not, we must not let them think they can bribe us with that which is already ours and replace them with those who understand what it means to be a statesman and not a politician.
 
Don’t say you can’t do that here, when you readily buy something made in Japan. The principle is the same. Remember Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, Bataan, what they perpetrated on the Chinese before we intervened. Remember that some of your clothing reads “Made in Vietnam”. That you pay taxes that are used for back room deals with foreign nations that would bleed us dry if allowed. It’s been 69 years since Pearl Harbor and I’m sure nobody is suing to prevent Japanese steel from being used in American structures. Time has changed the principle of that matter, and it will change the principle of the “ground zero” mosque. We should be more worried by what time is doing to erode the principles that made us what we are now. For if they change, so will the fabric of what this nation is and then will not be recognizable as the great hope and dream that it is.
 
“Action is always better than inaction, but sometimes choosing to not act is the boldest action of all” - Richard Marcinko USN (Ret.), Founder of Seal Team Six
 
I think not acting against our claim of religious freedom is the right thing to do here. It’s not easy, but it’s simply right.
Posted: 5/2/2010 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ]

I posted this as a reply on a thread called Navy SEAL Museum, but wanted to save it here for I feel in the extreme when it comes to this.

“Matthew Axelson, 29, was one of four Navy SEALs taking part in Operation Red Wing, a secret mission in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, to capture or kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah, head of an insurgent group known as the “Mountain Tigers.”
The SEAL unit was betrayed to the Taliban, which attacked with a force of more than 40 men. Only one SEAL, Marcus Luttrell, survived. The team leader, Lt. Michael Murphy, won the Medal of Honor, Axelson, Luttrell and Danny Dietz were awarded the Navy Cross, the second-highest Navy combat award.
Luttrell was saved by friendly tribal leaders, who told the Americans where they were hiding him from the Taliban. The effort to rescue Luttrell and the other three became the largest rescue operation conducted since Vietnam. Nineteen Americans were killed, one wounded and a Chinook helicopter was shot down during the search, rescue and recovery operation.
It was 10 days of dangerous searching before Axelson’s body was found almost a mile from the original battle site. The site was 7,500 feet up in the mountains, posing a problem for fuel and weight. The crew refused to leave the area until they found Axelson, and to continue the search, they stripped the helicopters of weapons, ammunition, armor plate, even their own body armor, said Col. Kurt Matthews, who was pilot on the mission.
Eventually, tribesmen brought them to where Axelson had died. Tech. Sgt. Dan Murray, a para-rescue man, went out and brought Axelson’s body in. The men told the Axelsons that before their son’s body was flown out of Afghanistan, they pinned an American flag they had carried to his body bag, which was then carried to a waiting plane through military men and women standing shoulder-to-shoulder along a mile of roadway at the air base.”
 
Who, except for the American, understands what it is that these men did? It’s been said that the English fight for the queen, Russians for the motherland, Germans for the fatherland, Japs for the emperor, and of course you all know that many in this world fight for their god-o-the-day. Then the saying goes that “ But, Americans fight for souvenirs”.
 
I’ve often thought about this saying. I’ve professed it, in jest, many times when someone see’s some blood stained leaves I have pinned behind a glass frame with a souvenir of my own. It may be that this saying was really coined by someone who was unable to understand the American in battle, in life, in brotherhood. Someone who looks at the “freedom isn’t free” bumper sticker as just a political statement that goes against the ideals they are free to pursue because of the American patriot.
 
Americans fight for each other, that other human being facing the abyss with you. The ones who trained hard, not for themselves. They trained because they didn’t want to let each other down. Because they said “this is what I want to do” and to do that you have to be trusted by the others that do this so they will know that you will not let them down because they will not let you down when you have voluntarily navigated the gauntlet to get to wear the Beret, or Trident, or CIB or SAR badge or whatever designates you as someone who will step into it so others may live.
           
You see the difference when you see the radical hide amongst women and children to shield themselves from hostile fire, versus the 19 who perished to bring home their brother’s remains. You see it when you see the uniform on the foreign leader who has never done anything other than pin on his insignia and wave to the crowd. In my mind the God’s of War are waiting for him with baited breath to smite his soul with that which is deserved of those hollow souls who hide behind the mere appearance of greatness. You see it in the eyes of those security forces being trained by Americans who will never fight for themselves as the American fights for them. To give them the chance to experience freedom. We have died for them to have the chance and most will never even take the opportunity. They look at us with contempt. They think we view ourselves as superior. We are superior. We have proven that in battle, in honor, in society, to the world when it needs someone to stand up and say “you may not fight for yourselves, but we will fight for you” because we know that we are accountable and great viciousness will prevail if no action is taken. 
 
            I’m sitting here with a heavy feeling. Sorrow for the loss, the sacrifice of all involved, and then the pride. The pride that I have the honor to call myself an American and can claim membership to the patriot brethren that produces men such as those that brought him home, though it was only the battered remains of an American warrior. It was not so much for the physical retrieval, but for the respect to the soul, the man, the being or entity whom commanded that body, on this earth, to serve his Country. This Country. My Country. The United States of America. Second only to my Family and far ahead of any other thing this man could care about.
 
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
-President, Theodore Roosevelt
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

 

 

Posted: 4/6/2010 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ]

Getting Intimate with Violence II, © James G. Barnhart 2009

Violence is a tool. That's it........Thanks for coming.......  OK, seriously.

Just as a gun, which is a tool, is praised and demonized for the results of it's use; so goes the reputation of violence.

A mother hawk brings food to the nest to feed her young. "She is so beautiful and caring. How wonderful and inspiring it is to watch this" says the grandmother watching the Discovery Channel. If she had witnessed the killing of the mother rabbit (now being fed to the baby hawks) that was edited out of the show, I suspect she would have been rooting for the rabbit and felt animosity toward the "mean ole' Hawk".

So let's look at violence for what it is and save the opinions about it for later. The utility of violence is that it is a tool for gaining a desired result. If I need to eat and have no other means to secure food than to kill a rabbit to gain nourishment. I'm going to use violence to end the rabbits life so I can consume it. I used violence as a tool for personal gain. Likewise, a crack addict that needs to score another rock, may decide to use violence to acquire the funding necessary to purchase said crack rock by threatening me with the use of violence or actually committing an act of violence to relieve me of my $300 watch. Crack-head uses violence as a tool for personal gain. What's the difference? Justification? Ethics? Ideology? Distilled down, it comes to empathy. If you can empathize with the victim, the violence will be viewed as evil. If not, you will find a way to justify it.

This is where we humans get all cinched up in the use of violence. Some say it's never OK to use it; others create a caveat for survival, self-defense or the defense of others. There are those who use it occasionally when they lose their temper for a bit, and then usually feel some sort of remorse for their actions. And then there are those who easily use it for personal gain with no remorse and quite often gain a sense of satisfaction or empowerment from it's use. No matter how you view it from a moral standpoint; violence is here to stay. It has always been a foundational element in nature, from the violence carried out on viruses by white blood cells to the crack-head taking a shot at you for your watch. As long as there are humans with a thirst for personal gain that outweighs their capacity to empathize with another human, there will be violence among humans.

Researchers like Jane Goodall and Richard Wrangham first chronicled non-survival violence among the great Apes in Africa in the 1960's and 70's. There are accounts of Silverback Gorillas killing off the infant offspring of other males to gain favor with the female. It works. The theory being that the female figures the best way to protect future offspring is to have them with the most dominant and ferocious male who will protect them from a similar fate with other males. Then there are the instances of chimps (who are classified as Apes) hunting monkeys and literally tearing them apart in feeding frenzies, even when there are plentiful means of nourishment easily available in the local environment.

There are accounts of raids on other clans of Chimps. The raiding party moves silently through the jungle (as opposed to the usual hooting and other loud verbal calls Chimps frequently employ when not raiding), ignoring the usual boundaries of their territory. When they find a member of an opposing clan they will attack in a frenzied torrent of violence that almost always results in a fatality. Unless, there are multiple members of the opposing clan. They stalk, reconnoiter, evaluate and attack. If there is unnecessary risk involved with the loss of numerical advantage, they retreat and try again another day. They even employ weapons by using limbs and logs as clubs. They are intelligent enough to calculate risk based on numerical advantage or the lack thereof, they carry out acts of vengeance and use violence to dominate and ensure the continuation of their bloodline through prodigy. But, they show no empathy towards others of their species (even those they had previously had close relationships with before a split of a clan into two separate groups) or any other species when they set out to use violence for personal gain. They are neurologically incapable of violence interruptus via empathetic interdiction. Once they start, they will not withdraw until finished or beaten by violent counter attack. No empathy.....remember that. Why? It's the key to everything.

"Cold blooded killer", "He was like an animal", "It was like he just looked right through me". These descriptors are some common ones that are indicators that the person in question either had no capacity for empathy that would preclude violent behavior or their empathetic inclinations were overruled by an emotional takeover. These are, if you understand what allows the violent behavior, very accurate descriptors of the neurological state of the person being described.

As I covered earlier, the Amygdala is responsible for many things such as the fight or flight response, secretion of the hormonal cocktails that play a major role in memory, emotion, protocol or lack thereof, etc. The Neocortex and Prefrontal lobes are responsible for reasoning, among many other things. Remember, we are excluding all other brain function responsibilities to keep this simple. So, let's say you see something or somebody does something that initially makes you livid. You get all pumped up and are ready to rumble. Then your reasoning kicks in and you settle down.

A few months ago I was in my little 4cyl Ford Ranger with my 4yr old son. We had just taken off from a stoplight and the lane to our right was ending. Up comes this mini-van just as the lane was ending and forces me to slam on my brakes when he cut me off with oncoming traffic in the opposing lane. I was furious. He then slowed well below the speed limit and flipped me off because of my horn honking and fist waving. At the next intersection, he stopped short and that was it! Out I came. How dare he jeopardize the safety of my little boy who is now sitting in his car seat in the vehicle I am briskly walking away from and leaving alone in the middle of the street in a crime ridden town on a Saturday evening. Now I am envisioning my little guy possibly watching his father be killed in the street by a gun toting stink star with road rage and all the ball games I'll miss and the deviant behavior I'll not be able to dissuade through those tough adolescent years. My Amygdala told me to launch forth and beat this loser down. My reasoning said your a loser if you do this.

In those initial few seconds, my tripwire had been sprung. I was focused and enraged and just knew that inflicting a pain penalty on this loser would make it all better. Reasoning brought me back to civility. My Neocortex and Prefrontal Lobes took a couple seconds and evaluated what was happening. They interpreted what my Amygdala was out to accomplish and then reconciled that with all my life experience, priorities, fears, opinions, successes, failures, etc. and said "Hey! Quit acting like an idiot. There are very negative consequences to what you are about to do."

But, what if my reasoning had let me go? What if the reasoning from my life experience, priorities, etc. had attached no unacceptable consequences to my planned behavior? What if the consequences were familiar because of a lifetime of violent behavior and therefore were no deterrent? What if, through brain damage or congenital defect, I had no capacity for reasoning or the ability to feel empathy towards the suffering I was determined to cause in the driver or my son because of unintended collateral damage? What if a life of violence was so familiar to me that I felt uneasy and out of place in a peaceful confrontation or negotiation and could only be at ease when there was some level of violence at play? Then I would be like every animal on the planet that does not posses Prefrontal Lobes developed enough for reasoning.

Case Precedence:

1: Recently, on the Discovery Channel, I watched a woman who is a genius. She has developed, among many other accomplishments, a system that eases cattle in corrals by surrounding them with visually comforting decorations and paint schemes. When being penned up for transport, Vet inspection, milking, slaughter, etc., they experience a great level of anxiety that can lead to sickness or injury because of physical damage from stampede attempts in close quarters. Her system makes the experience more humane for them. This has human potential for many things such as low stress office environments, dentist visits, etc. But, the remarkable aspect of this show was the fact that this woman had a neurological defect. She could attach no emotional value to facial expressions in other humans. You give her a mean face, a sad face, a face of terror, excitement or whatever. She could not interpret the emotion you were trying to convey. She is incapable of empathizing with someone based on facial expression.

If someone like this were predisposed to violence, do you think they would get the stop signal through reasoning based on a facial expression of fear or terror? What impact would this have on situations similar to what LtCol. Grossman writes about where some may be saved because their potential murderer sees the terror they are causing in their victims eyes and relates to them as a person? Additionally, how do you stand a potential aggressor down with a very confident posture and expression, causing them to contemplate their own safety, when they can interpret nothing from the physical display? Even if they have genius level reasoning ability in all other areas, they may be un-empathetic and/or a sociopath as you well know.

2: Many times, as in the case of the raiding Chimps who aborted their attack because of the loss of numerical advantage, fear of injury or death will preempt an act of violence. Even when there is no capacity for empathy, self preservation may yield restraint.

Then you have the case of a woman referred to as "M". Daniel Goleman wrote about a woman who knew no fear. She was not an overly aggressive type of person with something to prove. Nor did she have a violent life. She simply did not have the capacity to feel the emotion of fear. You could put a loaded gun to her head, cock it, take the slack out of the trigger and see no registration of fear in her actions or in her brain activity. As Goleman explained; "she knew she should fear the gun and that it could hurt her, but felt no feelings of fear".

3: Alexithyism. When someone is unable to express, recognize or interpret emotion. This is close to jumping off the deep end into more intricate discussion than what we need to cover here. There is a lot to absorb and yet more to be uncovered. But, understand this; it has been my experience when dealing with people who have diminished capacity to express or communicate emotion, desire, hopes, dreams, whatever; there has been a marked tendency to resort to violence to get a satisfying result. Now to qualify my experience, my line of work usually placed me with those of violent or criminal disposition from the start. But, there was e definite distinction between those who used violence as a utility tool for it's results, as a tactic, and those who used violence out of frustration be cause they were unable to connect and get results with any other tactic.

I was contracted to work a major labor dispute. The management and labor had no clear path ahead to a resolution and the tension was quickly becoming elevated. I was hired in an executive protection capacity and my team was assigned to the VP and his family. The union members were in no way Alexithymic. They were very vocal about their emotions. I had several chances to meet with the union leadership and discuss plans to prevent the situation from turning violent. In attendance were several of the union members who were laborers in the plant. Everyone at that point was firm but polite. We talked several times and, although I had a hard time getting them to understand that I was not on anyone's side and just there to ensure personal safety, I had a decent rapport with them and understood their frustrations and goals through there competent expression.
The talks broke down and many of the striking members began using violence out of frustration. It even got to the point of locking in the management and having to use helicopters to bring in supplies and personnel. There were overturned cars, Malatovs, etc. But, because of the interaction with them early on, we were able to determine who was more prone to temper flare-ups (Inability to control their Amygdala's response), we made personal files on each opposing member to track their behavior, we planted people into the picket lines to gather info. There was a definite build up of frustration and as the volume of their expression started to dwindle, we knew they were running out of options. All attempts at negotiation were proving fruitless and when the violence began, we were not surprised and had already planned to deal with it. We knew it would come. But, as long as they were able to feel as though expressing themselves and negotiating was making progress, we knew they were not yet ready to be violent.

The flip side of this is Andrew. Andrew is an ex-convict I hired as a general laborer in my small business who I now know is Alexithymic. There were many indicators that he was predisposed to violence. He was from a broken home and had been raised by his mother who was an aggressive and belligerent woman. Pure white trash. His friends were from much the same background. Two of them had hands reconstructed from fights. Andrew himself had hardware installed to hold his jaw together from bouts in prison. I once had a conversation with them about fighting. We were somewhat of a novelty to each other since they were from the exact polar opposite sides of the criminal justice system. They were wolves who had come to work for a sheepdog for a bit and it allowed me to look into their heads. Back to the conversation. They were boasting a little about how many fights they had been in. They made mention of how the county fair was where you went to find out who had the best "crew". This meant that little groups of local "thuglets", as I like to call them, would get together for a rumble at the fair and see who could whip who.

As this went on I began to try to get them to explain the necessity of the crew competition and what it would do for them when they were 40 or 50 or 60 years old. They laughed at it as though it were something of fantasies and that they would be some kind of supreme ruler of the neighborhood by then and would have younger followers fight for them when they no longer could. So the working relationship dragged on.

As time passed I could tell Andrew was incapable of expressing anything but aggressiveness. Whenever something positive would happen, he would puff up and gesture as though the experience made him more powerful as a knuckle dragger and added to his ability to dominate. Any confrontation or disagreement in the workplace got an immediate angry and aggressive response from him. When he screwed up, he lashed out angrily in verbal tirades. It was clear that he was going to have to be removed from my place of business, though I was learning a lot from his behavior. The finishing blow was when he slapped his girlfriend in my presence for wanting to leave a work party before he was ready to go. This all ended with police involvement and a warning to him that if I seen him around me or my family I would assume there was about to be a lethal situation and react accordingly. I'll miss Andrew and his little Swastika tattoo on his neck. I have pages of notes on his behavior.

The point is this. As a nearly proportional inversion from the behavior of the union members in the labor dispute who could easily express their wants and needs, Andrew was unable to reason through the simplest of social situations. Nobody could read him because of is inability to communicate and since he was understood by no one, he could not accomplish anything. Every attempt at normalcy was torpedoed by his inept and violent upbringing. Since he could get no satisfaction from applying his missing intellect, he attempted the Silverback method of domination through violence. You see this many times when women are drawn to the "Badboy". He's an emotional and social idiot, though he may be intelligent. She feels protected by his no BS personality and roughness and figures it's a safe place to be. He's bad enough to protect her from the plethora of predators out there, but is just misunderstood and so she will tame him. Problem is, he won't be able to make her understand because of his inability to communicate his emotions and it will get violent because that's what he knows. Couple that with a deficiency in the empathy department and you get today's murder, rape and abuse rate for women when their attacker is a husband or boyfriend.

Check out these URL's for more in-depth insight into Alexithyism.

<!-- m -->http://eqi.org/alexi.htm    and    <!-- m --><!-- m -->http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con ... 42/3/276-a<!-- m -->

Cyclefish members in my area get the training for $18   Go to defconccw.com for more info.

 

Posted: 4/6/2010 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ]

OK, there is some repetition here frm the Connecting the Dots articles, but stay with it as it expands into new concepts.

Getting Intimate with Violence

 © James Barnhart 2009
 
 
There is a lot of discussion on the subject of tactics.  That word, tactic?  It’s used A LOT!  
 
A tactic, as defined by Dictionary.com, is: a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result. Tactical is the word used to describe the nature of something used in a tactic or set of tactics.  This can range from tactical thinking to every product under the sun the promoter wants to create an air of adventure around, i.e. tactical boots, tactical slings, vests, eyewear, etc. 
 
By definition, an exotic dancers’ go-go boots could be considered tactical boots since they are used to entice customers to pay money to the wearer because of physical attraction; a definite establishment of a tactic to generate revenue. Yes, I have even seen a tactical cigarette lighter. In this discussion, however, we are not lighting tactical cigarettes.  We are talking about how to survive a lethal attack. This is the desired result we want to achieve with our response.  To effectively defend ourselves with a response, utilizing tactics developed from our knowledge, experience and training.  I coined the term “Defensive Intelligence™ ” to describe the software side of defense, which is the foundation of all things on the practical side of the subject. 
 
This takes up about 40 hours of my full curriculum, so it is obviously more in depth than we can go here, but I want to open this up for discussion here because there is much discussion about what to do to get your weapon out quicker to get the first shot off or stop them before they cut you or which stance allows for quicker target acquisition, best holster, etc.. But, there is a lot to be done to mentally be in the fight, sooner. You will not react, and react properly, until you are truly, mentally, in the fight.
 
To do this, we have to get to the root of what we’re talking about here.  It’s violence, plain and simple.  We can train extensively in tactics and gain great proficiency with our weapons of choice. But, to truly be efficient you must remove any mental deficits pertaining to understanding, recognizing, countering and be totally at ease with using the utility of violence for self defense. When we have to rewind back in an attack scenario, before the use of the weapon and drill into violence itself, we can condition ourselves for the practical application of tactics.  You may be smooth on the range or in the Dojo, but understanding and being comfortable with the duality of violence is the key to true efficiency and surviving a violent attack.  It's at the root of the question, "will I be able to do it when I need to?".
 
Once you get through the origins, history, neurology, psychology and physiology of violence you have to deal with the “neural tripwire” that sets the practical aspect of your defense into motion.  No matter what the situation or your choice of fighting style or tactic and weapon, it’s the initial fight or flight response to initiate those courses of action that begins your success or failure.
 
While working with group formerly known as Blackwater USA, I attended an instructors’ training course that, as part of learning the fighting system, had an element of the training designed to condition that neural tripwire I spoke of earlier.  However, they were not fully aware of what (in a neural and anatomical sense) they were conditioning.  The founder of this course is a retired special operations “Sailor”, and the fighting system they use has been the adopted “Close Quarters” defensive technique for Naval Special Warfare communities for more than ten years now.  This fighting system, or any other system/style/discipline, is irrelevant to what I’m targeting with this discussion. What is important is what they were accomplishing with their training technique, and that was the conditioning of the part of the brain called the amygdala. 
 
This one part of the brain, in the limbic region, is responsible for the entire initial reaction in a fight or flight response.  It is the basis of the initial reaction no matter what you choose to do or use. Now, this is covered in the very final portions of my Defensive Intelligence™  curriculum, but for initial hand to hand or weapons employment, it is the last step backwards, preempting all physical aspects of defense, before the entry into the purely neurological aspect of the defense realm.  When you get to what is usually the origins of tactical response discussions, you are normally in the discussions that include; fastest holsters, best carry position, best draw techniques, fastest sighting systems, best hand to hand style, initial fighting postures/stances, etc.  All of these are for the gaining of leverage or advantage as quickly as possible.  Whom ever strikes first has a better chance of winning, right? Absolutely! 
 
So, let’s say you have the perfect hand to hand technique to repel the attack if it is too close to get your weapon on them first, or maybe you are unarmed and have no weapon.  Whatever the case, let’s assume you have attained efficiency in the most effective martial technique known to man.  And, if armed, you have the absolute best compromise in holster design for speed of use versus retention and or comfort.  You also have the best new technocratic sights or sight system known to modern man mounted on the certified best and fastest shootin' iron a human can wield.  All debate, as the “Gore” would put it, would be pointless. Except, that little almond-shaped part of your brain that gets an initial survival signal from your sensory organs before the other, slower, part of your brain (the prefrontal lobes) that applies reasoning? Well, it’s responsible for taking all your stored memory, experience, nuance, personality, fear, denial, etc. and manifesting it in an initial, physical reaction at the millisecond you are suddenly faced with imminent death or at least great bodily harm.  You know this instance as the FLINCH.  It can get you killed because it can be sloppy, but it can also be conditioned and has successfully been so for a few years now with very perceptible and measurable results.
 
This is the link between the knowledge of what you want to do and the commission of those acts.  It is also responsible for many other aspects of violence on both sides of the ethical line.  But, for the last little bit of split second advantage that can be rung out between the sometimes dichotomous relationship between mind and body, pertaining to self defense, the amygdala IS the link.
 
 
 
To get control (relatively speaking) of the amygdala, you first have to understand what it does.  To do that, we have to talk about memory.  This will be a greatly simplified example to keep the word count down.
 
A memory is a registering of emotion.  Whenever you see something you’re brain sees it and then if it is something of enough significance, relative to your personal life experience, you will feel something about what you just witnessed.  This “witnessing” can be realized via any of the external senses or in the intellect.  Some people remember mundane items of academics for tests by associating them with something else that has emotional significance.  For example, if you were sitting at a red light a week ago and watched a green Dodge truck drive in front of you on the cross street, you probably would not remember it by the end of the day.  But, let’s say that green Dodge was on fire and slammed into the utility pole on the corner.  You’re gong to remember that for years to come. So, how does it happen? Why does that Dodge have to be on fire and wreck to “imprint” on your memory. It boils down to what kind of a response it solicits from your amygdala.
 
When something is witnessed the signal first goes to a part of the brain called the thalamus.  The thalamus then acts as a middleman or switchboard, so to speak, and fwd’s the signal to the neocortex or “thinking” part of the brain.  There the signal is processed and this is then fed to the amygdala and a “feeling” is registered about what is being “witnessed”.  Then a signal about the feeling is picked up by the neocortex again and this is processed and sent back to the amygdala.  You just had a feeling about a feeling you had.  An example of this would be getting mad at yourself for being intimidated in a situation you feel you should have been more assertive in.  Or, seeing something in a painting that makes you feel a certain way and then being embarrassed when someone else notices your reaction. 
 
The neocortex is what separates us from lower species.  The limbic system alone is what I call the lizard brain.  Alligators, for example are very much without the benefit of a neocortex like humans possess.  They react according to instinctual impulses with no regard for the outcome as it pertains to consequences for themselves or (obviously) their prey.  They will lunge into a situation based on the feeding instinct and not reason it out as to whether it may be for their own good and selectively avoid acting on their hunger.  They also employ tactics that have been engrained in there memory by instinct and previous success.  They are lucky enough to be of such physical resilience to be able to endure their unsuccessful attempts and learn from their mistakes.  As humans, our lives are too fragile to engage in this trial and error tactic and so we must train with as much realism as possible in order to try and make an educated guess as to what is successful based on training scenario outcome. Sometimes, however, we use this lizard brain as our primary control circuit.  Grossman refers to this in his book “On Combat” as the “puppy” breaking through the screen door.  The screen door is your neocortex and prefrontal lobes and they serve to temper and regulate the actions the amygdala call upon to be carried out by applying reason.  Crimes of passion or rage occur when the amygdala hijacks our emotions.
 
So when a signal is sent to the amygdala, it issues a reaction by causing the secretion of different chemical combinations in the brain.  These secretions effect the exchange of signals between the differing parts of the brain.  This secretion can be replicated when we later witness something similar and this will cause the recollection of the original event.  One very strong one for me is banana pancakes.  My Grandmother made the best banana pancakes I have ever had.  Anytime I smell banana pancakes being made it transports me back to my Grandmothers kitchen.  It’s like I’m right there.  I feel emotions I had then and I remember things I normally do not think of. The olfactory region (part of the brain that processes smell) by the way, has a concentration of synapses (neural links) to the amygdala and neocortex that is unrivaled by any other portion of our brains makeup.  Hallucination can occur if the trigger is sufficient to cause the recreation of the original volume of secretion, or if the original secretion was extremely large.  A good friend of mine is a Vietnam veteran with many confirmed kills.  While viewing a popular Vietnam war movie, he was overcome with emotion and had to leave the theater.  The realism of the movie triggered a secretion by the amygdala that was as strong as secretions he had while in active combat and he was able to smell things and feel like he was right back in the battle.  The fear, anxiety, rage, excitement, sorrow was as though he was in action right there in the 5th or 6th row back from the screen.
 
When we train, how ever we train, we are causing the secretion and subsequent imprint of small synapse pathways in our brain.  The more you train and refine your training, the more the cumulative effects of these pathways are manifested in our actions.  They control the brain signals which control the signals to the muscles which control the use of our weapons.  In training, we use reasoning to fine tune our actions and hone our skills to as close to perfection as possible.  This is very important and to avoid training scars you have to train the right way or your liable to call up the wrong response if you haven’t imprinted the correct reaction enough for it to be called up by the amygdala when you need it. But, in a real life and death situation, we sometimes cannot take the time to reason and have to just react or die.  Your amygdala will scan for a memory to use to control your reaction.  If you have trained for the situation it will call up your training and repeat the secretion mixture and volume you created in training.  The more realistic your training, the more relevant the secretions created during that training will be to the real situation.  This is the key to controlling the flinch reaction.
 
Dr. Joseph Ledoux PhD, discovered the key to conditioning the original fight or flight response, though he didn’t know it, or at least didn’t take steps to develop this use for it as far as I know.  Much of my research has uncovered discoveries that would directly benefit training for defensive purposes but is not used out side of military training for reasons that are political and/or social, I’m sure.  Many of the essays and published works of these neuroscientists have made overt statements that more than slant in an anti-gun persuasion.  A few have even written pure fabrications in regards to gun statistics.  They are easy to spot, there will be no reference for them in the bibliography.
 
Here’s what Ledoux found out.  He took a lab rat and exposed it to an audible tone.  Along with this tone he gave this little vermin a healthy dose of electric shock.  So, for obvious reasons, the little rat became very fearful and agitated when he heard the tone because he had learned that it meant he was about to experience something very bad.  Even when there would be periods of omitting the shock, the rat would still show to be very fearful and agitated by the tone. Then the good doctor did a little brain surgery.  He removed the rats auditory cortex, the part that processes your hearing, and rendered the rat “brain deaf”.  It couldn’t hear anything.  But, when the tone was again sounded for the rat, it became very fearful and very agitated even though there had been no shock.  Something else in that rats brain “heard” the tone.  It was the amygdala.  Here’s why.
 
All sensory input is processed and sent to the neocortex and prefrontal lobes via the thalamus, but what Ledoux found out was that the amygdala receives a signal first.  As much as .012 seconds before the rest of the brain gets the signal from the thalamus, the amygdala gets a signal to evaluate for survival and will issue immediate secretions based on the experience associated with the signal.
 
You open a drawer and see a snake.  You immediately flinch and reel back from the surprise.  Then you see that it isn’t moving, there are seams from the rubber mold and the color is not right. You relax, but then are embarrassed or may laugh at being “had”.  You flinched for two reasons. 1. Your amygdala got a snake signal before the neocortex and prefrontal lobes reasoned away the threat and ; 2. Another part of your brain called the hippocampus, responsible for adding context to the signal, said the snake would be able to strike you.  Then your neocortex and prefrontal lobes caught up and reasoning took over to bring you back from fight or flight.  If the snake had only been present in a photo, it still may have startled you a little, but the hippocampus would have attached the context of it only being in a photo to your initial reaction before your neocortex and prefrontals. After your reasoning sets you at ease, the amygdala then issues secretions about how you feel about the fact that you were tricked.
 
This is also what happens when you are sleeping and hear a strange noise.  Even though you are asleep, your brain is still on guard.  In your house, the normal sounds of YOUR house are well recognized by your amygdala.  But, when something out of place makes a sound, it wakes you up.  The amygdala says “this is new and may be a threat”.  This is why you may have trouble sleeping in a new house or when in a motel.  All the sounds are new and the amygdala isn’t comfortable with them yet. Even sounds that may be familiar can cause a sleep issue because the hippocampus knows that this is not in your normal context.
 
This also is the cause for the slow motion phenomena experienced while in combat.  The amygdala is reacting in real time.  You are shooting and moving and engaging at top speed.  But, your neocortex and prefrontal lobes are what are feeding you your perception.  They are slow in comparison to the amygdala’s pace and so only perceive the action in what seems like stop action photography.  In my shooting, I felt as though I couldn’t pull the trigger fast enough.  Every round I sent downrange into my attackers seemed as though it took everything I had to get the shot off. I couldn’t pull the trigger fast enough.  But witnesses said it sounded like a staccato burst from a machine gun.  I got off twelve rounds with ten hits in about 7 seconds.  My amygdala was taking care of business while the rest of my brain was “watching” the show.
 
To condition the amygdala, you have to amp the realism through the roof and make it happen in a totally random and immediate nature.  This is what we were accomplishing at Blackwater.  First off, you have to train with people who are not afflicted by the phobia of interpersonal human aggression that Grossman writes about in “On Killing” and “On Combat”.  This is important because if you know your training partners are hesitant to issue you a pain penalty, you’ll not be as fearful of the scenario as you should be.  My former training partners were all from various SEAL teams and were getting certified to go back and be the licensed instructors for this system in their respective teams.  They weren’t newb’s and had been selected for their aggressiveness.  They had no problems with “engaging” you.  The second aspect of this is that we were training with “live” ammo.  It wasn’t lethal, but was a brand called FX Simunition.  This is a live round, with a very low powder charge, that shoots a paint projectile out of live firearms.  When hit, it raises a large welt, can cause minor blood loss and feels like getting shot with a very capable air rifle.  So this brought a very heightened state of realism to the training as well.
 
We were brought into the room blindfolded.  After we were placed on our spot, a hood was lowered from the ceiling.  It was made of heavy black cloth that you could not see through and even though it was not used in any active part of the training, it was heavy with the odor of sweat because of the stress level of those who were placed under it. All the while you were being set up, there was a deafening sound that resembled bricks in a spinning clothes dryer.  This was to mask the sounds of the people getting ready to attack you. Sometimes immediately and sometimes as long as 3 minutes after being placed under the hood, the hood would be yanked away by a rope and pulley and you were “on”.
 
The first time my hood was yanked up, a guy stuck a sign in my face that read “airport”.  He was going to ask me for directions.  But, since he had pulled the sign from his jacket pocket, my amygdala reaction was sloppy and I shot him in the chest.  There was no time for reasoning before I pulled the trigger.  Then after others were sent through it was my turn again, the hood was raised again and I was grabbed from behind and two guys about 3 feet in front of me attacked.  The guy on the left delivered a good jab to my left cheek and the guy on the right swept me to the floor with a kick to my right thigh. From the ground I was kicked repeatedly, but was able to get my gun out and engage.  After all three were shot, I got up and looked around. A new guy stepped around a corner, raised a .357 and fired.  It was a live gun loaded with blanks.  The muzzle flash was very big and this shook me to the core.  My second round under the hood had gone better than the first as far as my reaction, but then I was broke down to the point of freezing by the introduction of the .357.  I had no idea this was going to be used.  The previous weapons had been semi-auto’s.  We were allowed to inspect them and all ammunition to verify they were, in fact Simunition.  But the introduction of the .357 shook me hard.  I had no idea if it had been inspected and if the ammo had been verified to be blanks only.  The realism was off the charts and so was an amazingly accurate test run of our amygdalaic response.
 
This went on over several days.  Sometimes you were engaged with a plastic knife, sometimes you had to start from the floor, on your back with your eyes closed and couldn’t react until you were kicked. One time three drunk guys tried to get me to go to Denny’s with them. They were actually intoxicated and it was very interesting.  Over time, we began to see the conditioning.  We were able to start responding instantly.  The flinch was turned into the initiation of the draw or the first motions of our hand to hand technique. We were able to restrict the response when no true threat was presented, although we were still very aggressive in stance which would serve to deter any would be attackers who may have been evaluating us as possible targets.
 
This was harshly gained conditioning and can not be fully replicated in a civilian environment except by a closed group of people who always train together and are absolutely in agreement on the parameters they will train under.  But, it can be done.  And, it can save your life by giving you the edge of not reacting the way they count on you reacting.
 
Many times, when a scientist or researcher bungles an experiment or study, it's because they began their process setting out to prove their own theory instead of letting the evidence convince them of the facts.  With our objective, however, you have to wade through the research and findings of these predominately liberal and anti-gun scientists with the predisposition of understanding it all for the successful use of a gun in self defense.  They never make the effort to take it there for you so you can benefit from a pro-gun standpoint.
 
What you will also find is that many authors simply research a topic for many months or years, interview those with relevant experience and then write a book about the cumulative body of their research without having any practical experience in the subject at all.  This causes them to not always present it in a point of view that lends to the armed American citizen because that concept is a foriegn ideology to them.  Lt. Col. Grossman even mentions the availability of assault rifles and pistols in our society as a negative aspect on page 326 of his book "On Killing" and that he believes there needs to be a modernization of our firearms laws to control them.  I attribute this to his life as a military officer who may believe that armed authority belongs to those in positions of "authorization" to have technically advanced weapons versus the common citizen.  He even states that he considers arms of post-flintlock design to be technologically advanced enough to fall in this category of possibly needing more control.  Maybe, as he openly divulges in his books, it's because he has never been in mortal combat, especially as a private citizen victimized by a violent criminal.  But, that didn't seem to bother him enough to restrict active CCW practitioners from contributing to his wealth by attending his seminars.  Is he an opponent of the 2nd Amendment?  Possibly.....At any rate, his research and eloquence is solid, as well as entertaining, and should be studied for beneficial use in our own training.  
 
Let’s dial into some violence....
 
 One of the biggest obstacles to self defense is the fact that you have to commit some form of violence against another human to stop a violent attack.  For 98% percent of us, this poses some sort of issue.  I consider myself a non-violent person.  That is, I prefer to settle almost any imaginable confrontation with a peaceful collaboration, or even a compromise if I don’t have to betray any moral convictions as part of the compromise.  I have frequently walked away, even though it may have appeared to have been submission.  Choosing your battles is never submissive.  As Richard Marcinko, founder of SEAL Team Six, stated in his literature; “Action is always better than inaction, and not acting is sometimes the boldest action of all.”
 
But, there may come a point when non-violent dispute settlement is out of the question if you want to prevent becoming injured by physical attack.  This is when we face the question; “Can I do it? Pull the trigger and cause a bullet to penetrate another human being?”
 
In a situation such as war, there is a lead up, in most cases, to the violence.  At the very least, you will knowingly be in a hostile environment and have time to ponder the issue.  A boxer sits and looks at his or her opponent for several moments before the fight, thinking about what is coming.  This is where the phobia to interpersonal human aggression is most seductive.  Why?  Because, you can relate to the other person.  You see them as the humans they are, which is very much the same thing you are.  It’s called empathy.  Empathy, for the most part, is what prevents you from easily performing acts of violence.  So how can an empathetic, wholesome type of person like us law abiding Americans become OK with the use of violence?  I believe that when you know the natural history, neurological, physiological and psychological aspects of violence, you can become much more accepting to the necessity of its use.  When you see it for the natural tool it is, instead of some Draconian act of evil that will damn you to the realm of wickedness like the criminal element of our society, you can be more confident that it can be the right thing to do. 
 
Nature is inherently violent. You cannot demonstrate a single species, with a nervous system, on this planet that does not use violence in some manner.  Even the caterpillar commits an act of violence by devouring the leaf.  What’s that you say? Plants cannot be considered in a discussion on violence?  Tell that to the last insect consumed by the Venus Fly-Trap species of plant.

Cyclefish members in my area get the training for $18   Go to defconccw.com for more info.

Posted: 4/6/2010 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ]

 

Defensive Intelligence: Connecting the Dots
 © James Barnhart 2007
 
I had just come to a stop when they pulled into my driveway directly behind me.  Their headlights were set to high beams and I couldn’t see them for the glare in the rearview mirror.  Chris was always showing up in a hurry, vehemently telling me  to “get ready, we’re going out”.  By the time I set the parking brake and turned off the stereo, Chris was not at my side window as I expected, maybe it wasn’t him.  As I turned the key off, the headlights from behind dimmed and the glare reduction allowed me to see the passenger pulling a ski mask over his face in my rearview mirror.  The driver was already stepping out of the car.
This was my point, my “switch”.  The fear came over me and said “listen to me, do as I say”, and I did.  He got off three rounds as I slid out of my truck, drawing my gun as the unburned powder peppered my face.  But, I reverted to my training, returned fire and got ready for the aftermath.  Most everyone has said that my training saved me when presented with the extreme reality of being instantly engaged by gunfire at short range.  But what made me revert?  Whatever triggered the application of my training actually saved my life.
 It was the fear?  OK, the fear is responsible for applying my training and saving my life, but what was it that recognized that I should fear something, or deeper yet, what caused me to look up at my mirror when I sensed the headlights dimming behind me?  I hadn’t seen or heard anything overtly dangerous at that point, but I stopped what I was doing and looked up at that moment, instead of getting out first to greet whoever it may have been.  So there was something there, albeit minute, before the fear, which made me want to reevaluate the situation.  That’s what I was after when I started dissecting the whole incident, looking to make sense of why those little morsels of passive information triggered a nearly unconscious reaction.
It wasn’t the first time I had noticed that there was something happening to prepare me for somewhat unexpected occurrences from time to time.  There is no argument that the more time you have to prepare for a violent encounter, the better your chances of survival.  So what is it that makes us just “know” something, and how do we use it to predict violence?  The answers lay hidden in plain view. 
My shooting incident coincidently occurred during a period of great strides in neurological research and technology.  While I was working my way through the veritable mountain of self defense type literature exclusive of the professional training genre I had been immersed in up to that point, I realized that everything I was reading was based on the reactionary mindset.  What tactics to use, what caliber and type of gun, best concealed clothing and holster for easy draw, how to reload and drills for clearing stoppages, target transitioning, etc..  Everything you need to know for after the violence commences.  All of this is absolute in its necessity, but while expanding my research I found there were recent neurological discoveries that were exposing answers about violent behavior that applied directly to the subject of not just reacting to, but also understanding and avoiding ( possibly even predicting) lethal violence.
The jump to the scientific and medical literature was nearly accidental in nature as there exists a dichotomous relationship between the two worlds of the neurological and psychological scientists and the legally armed citizens who seek to counter criminal violence.  Nearly all of the authors of the books and research journals I encountered, at some point, made anti-gun declarations and there doesn’t appear to be any overt effort to get this information out to the armed citizen for use now.  Instead, the majority of the effort is to implement programs born of these discoveries into educational programs in an attempt to identify and correct the violent inclinations during childhood, before they become murderers and rapists. 
I applaud the application of these wonderful discoveries and programs to help children and hopefully stem the tide of criminal violence.  However, neglecting to acknowledge the benefits this would give the armed citizen, because of an anti-gun agenda, to me, would be ridiculously ironic given the fact that the very literature they are producing professes, with steadfast momentum, that violence is a common and natural occurrence among primates and humans, regardless of the presence of a gun or any other weapon for that matter.  The only differences being that, with a gun, the attacker isn’t forced to be in close proximity to the victim, and the armed victim isn’t bound by the law of natural selection to lose if the attacker has an advantage leveraged by physical prowess or a weapon of their own.  Anti-gun rhetoric aside, the science of what they present is solid.
The first dot from which all other dots in the self defense picture get their structure is the amygdala.  No, it’s not a mythical deity that warns warrior spirits of imminent peril.  It’s the area of the brain that has its finger on the emotional trigger of our brain.  The amygdala and another part of the brain called the hippocampus are responsible for almost all memory retention. 
The hippocampus takes the role of remembering the specifics of the memory such as context, but it is the amygdala that causes values and resultant emotion and action to be applied to those memories. For example, have you ever opened a drawer and jumped at the sight of a rubber snake or spider, only to exhale and smile a second later?  How many times have you heard something that made you instantly burst out in laughter, maybe spraying your drink you had just taken a sip of only to be totally embarrassed a second later?  Or how about when you smell something that immediately takes you back and not just remember, but feel the emotion of a fond moment in your past? 
The emotion and initial reaction is the amygdala in action.  The recognition that the snake in the aforementioned drawer was not in an enclosure protecting you from it was the hippocampus.  The amygdala assigned an emotion (fear) which triggered an immediate reaction (a jump back and a possible yelp), and then the prefrontal lobes (the rational, “thinking” area of the brain) reasoned that because of the coloring, visible seams from the rubber mold, and lack of realism (from close scrutiny) that it was ok and you did not need to flee.   
What is important to understand here is the order in which the signal is sent and what relationship each part of the brain shares with the collective response you display.  When you open the drawer, your eyes send the signal of the snake to the thalamus, which in turn sends the signal to the visual cortex which links up with the prefrontal lobes to rationalize the situation. But, the thalamus first sends a signal, in as little as 12 milliseconds, directly to the amygdala for an immediate survival reaction if necessary.  The other signal, after being tempered with reason is still shot back to the amygdala for an assignment of “feeling” about what you are seeing, but its the initial signal to the amygdala that causes the fight or flight response. 
How does the amygdala know to cause a hyper reaction to a realistic snake and the simple act of observation to a picture of a snake?  Its close working relationship with the hippocampus in creation of memories allows this differentiation.  It is the hippocampus that applies the context of what you are seeing.  This, in turn, controls the degree to which the amygdala is stimulated by this initial vigilance signal.  But, the threatening nature of the snake, aside from context, that results in a trigger reaction is the specialty of the amygdala’s memory function. 
The creation of a memory is actually a secretion of chemicals and firing of neural synapses prompted by the amygdala/hippocampus team.  A minor incident like watching traffic pass at a stop light solicits a very minor chemical/synapse imprint that is not an easily retrievable memory after the passage of minimal time.  However, the major occurrence of a violent encounter leaves a neural imprint that can easily be retrieved years or decades after the event when triggered by the correct stimuli.  This is the first dot in the connect-the-dots picture of defensive reaction.  Before the emotional aspects of the incident (fear, loathing or panic) set in, there is also an immediate physical reaction commanded by the amygdala.  This physical reaction (flinching, jumping back, yelling, screaming, etc.) is also a type of memory.  It is a preprogrammed response from previous encounters or gained knowledge, stored in the same chemical/synapse method, and it can be reprogrammed.
While working with Blackwater USA, I attended a specialized training course that specifically dealt with this reprogramming.   The method was to cover the “victim” with a black hood that was quickly jerked to the ceiling via a rope and pulley.  While under the hood and being subjected to an auditory distraction that sounded like bricks in a clothes dryer, aggressors would randomly position themselves around the victim and play their part when the hood was yanked up.  You may be attacked from behind, swung at with a closed fist, slashed at with a knife, shot at with a .357 loaded with blanks, simply asked for directions to the airport, etc. The pattern was random to evaluate the appropriateness of your response.  The key was the violence of action.  If you weren’t going to be queried for directions, it would always be an instantaneous, full contact, act of aggression that would result in quick defeat if your amygdala caused a flinching or out of control physical withdraw.  After repeated exposure to immediate violence over several days, the amygdala began to be reprogrammed to react in an instantly aggressive nature, countering the violent attack as opposed to a flinching reaction. How significant is this?  This physical reaction can be initiated in as little as twelve thousandths of a second.  That’s .012 seconds.  That's Defensive Intelligence and that can save your life…if you’re training for it.

Cyclefish members in my area get the training for $18   Go to defconccw.com for more info.

Posted: 4/6/2010 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ]

 

Cyclefish members in my area get the training for $18   Go to defconccw.com for more info.

 

Connecting the Dots: Part 2
© James Barnhart 2007
 
            A laboratory rat was subjected to electric shock accompanied by an audible tone.  Very soon, after repetitive tone/shock cycles it displayed obvious fear to the tone, even without the shock.  This is a simple example of an auditory association.  But even after the auditory cortex was removed from its brain, effectively rendering the rat absolutely brain deaf, it still displayed marked fear at the sounding of the tone.[1]  This correlates with the explanation of the neural circuitry in my article “Connecting the Dots”.  Before the signal from the eyes and ears is sent to the visual or auditory cortices, the amygdala receives (from the thalamus) it’s 12 millisecond flash signal first to assign an immediate evaluation and response in case it’s a “fight or flight” scenario that cannot wait for the prefrontal lobe to respond with its reasoning about what is seen.  The net result being, even with a piece of the neural machine missing or damaged, diseased or underdeveloped, the brain still functions albeit in a different (not necessarily reduced) capacity.
          
     One of the many neurological and physiological aspects of my driveway shooting was the experience of auditory exclusion.  Gunfight survivors often describe the feeling of being in a tunnel where everything else but the source of their immediate fear was “shut out”.  This is why it is important to break tunnel vision by looking left and right immediately following a firing cycle to detect additional threats that may have been converging on you while you were engaging the primary attacker.
 
My first indication of auditory exclusion came just moments after I stopped firing.  Both assailants lay bleeding, I had taken cover against the bed of my truck and could hear them yelling and crying.  It was then that I was almost overwhelmed by the cascading return of my perceptible hearing.  There were all the sounds of the environment; a streetlight buzzing, tree limbs rattling and autumn leaves swirling in the breeze.  There was a baby crying somewhere in the distance to my right and I could hear the voices of the fleeing people at the apartments down the hill from my house. 
 
The din of all this subtle ambient noise was not enough to trigger an immediate response from my amygdala, but was enough to cause me to start to feel panicked because I was still fearful of a second attack and was not able to  process each sound fast enough to definitively rule some of them out as additional attackers.  Or so I thought.
 
In reality, my amygdala was sorting out the sounds in as little as 12 milliseconds after the sound waves caused a signal to be sent from the nerves attached to my inner ear to my thalamus.  Since the sounds carried no memorable association with aggression to my amygdala and its memory partner, the hippocampus; there was no fight or flight response initiated.  However, the sound signals also traveled to my auditory cortex which translated them to my prefrontal lobes for reasoning.
 
The rational vetting process of the “thinking brain” is too slow to satisfy the urgency of what may have been another instant life or death scenario, resulting in my increased inklings of panic.  I now know that had there been anything that sounded like an immediate threat; my amygdala would have jerked me into action well before my prefrontal lobes could have issued a rational decision about how to handle the threat.
 
The exclusion of reality, so to speak, is not exclusive to the sense of hearing.  The lag after the amygdala response of rational comprehension is also responsible for the often described slow motion perception in an extreme duress situation. The amygdala is commanding response faster than the prefrontal lobes can process an understanding of what the visual cortex is saying the eyes are seeing.  Case in point; the passenger in my shooting did not begin to get out of the car until after I had engaged the driver.  Seeing the passenger’s movement to my left, I swung towards him and fired.  I thought I had only fired three rounds at the passenger.  
 
In reality, I got off five rounds.  He was just starting to step out as I started driving my gun in his direction and I do not remember firing before seeing his torso stand erect, but I put two rounds on him through the windshield of the car as he was just starting to rise from his seat, then three more directly into his torso after he was clear of the windshield.  I also remember feeling extremely lethargic in action, like a dream that wouldn’t let me react as fast as I felt was necessary.  I couldn’t pull the trigger fast enough to mitigate the threat.  It felt like I was keeping time with a metronome four feet in height.  However, witness accounts put the entire duration of gunfire at approx five to seven seconds, including the three rounds they got off before I returned fire.  I expended 12 rounds total; seven on the driver and five on the passenger.  So what was actually happening was that I was reacting faster than I could effectively “think”.  I was unaware of the windshield shots until much later when talking with detectives handling the investigation.  In his book, The Gift of Fear, Gavin DeBecker writes, “The brain is never more efficient than when its host is at risk”.  This statement is nearly absolute in truth.  My brain didn’t bother to take the time to let me fully perceive what was happening, it just took over my body and saved itself.
 
The latency of the rational response offered by the frontal lobes following the immediate survival response of the amygdala is common in incidents of high emotion such as fear or anger, but presents as a double-edged sword.  Except in situations of extreme stress, the initial reaction of the amygdala (felt as compelling emotion) is subdued by the reasoning of the pre frontal lobes, our “thinking” brain. 
 
The amygdala actually issues a second emotional value to the result of the pre frontal lobes’ perception. For example; you jump at the sight of a rubber snake in a drawer (fear), but laugh at yourself (humor) after realizing (prefrontal reasoning) you’ve been had. The amygdala initially made you jump from fear of being bitten by what it and the hippocampus knows is a dangerous entity and then made you laugh by assigning an emotion to what you realized was actually in front of you and how it must have made you look.  After the initial startling, the prefrontal lobes catch up and stop the amygdala from continued overreaction through reasoned qualification of the threat. 
 
The other side of this blade is that the survival reaction the amygdala commands is indiscriminate and can be sloppy in nature until the prefrontal lobes can take over with what they have gleaned from the situation.  The tragedy of Matilda Crabtree is such a case in point.  Mr. Crabtree had returned home and upon entering the house heard a suspicious noise.  His 14 year old daughter, Matilda, was supposed to be away for the evening and when she jumped out to scare him as a prank, he fatally shot her in an instant of amygdalaic reaction that was completed before his prefrontal lobes could make the distinction and pull his finger from the trigger. 
 
The quantum increase of the intricacies of our modern life and its exponential layering of economic and social interactions has also quickly outrun the sometimes all or nothing response our brain offers when the emotion is instant and extreme, making us look as though we just “snapped”. 
 
Now consider having diminished capacity in your prefrontal lobes. You may not rationalize that the rubber snake is rubber and therefore would not be able to stop the initial overreaction in a normal timeframe and continue on with your actions as though scripted by Monty Python himself.  Inversely, with diminished capacity in the amygdala, you could be like “M”.  “M” is a woman whose case is described in Daniel Golemans book, Emotional Intelligence.  Because of damage to her amygdala, she felt no fear and appeared to have ice water in her veins.  Goleman writes, “You could put a gun to her head and she would know that the gun was something to fear, but she would feel no actual fear of the gun”.  Or, consider a case of an amygdala so excited by its stimuli (as in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) that it crosses into the realm of hallucination or produces a reaction that the prefrontal lobes may be powerless to quell whether by result of brain damage, malformation, etc. 
 
This is where we’ll start looking at the next dot of this picture; understanding the criminal mind, for this is the root of the need to carry a weapon in the first place.

[1]  Professor Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D.,  New York University, http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/

Cyclefish members in my area get the training for $18   Go to defconccw.com for more info.

Posted: 4/1/2010 - 4 comment(s) [ Comment ]

 Starter bike, ladies ride, too small, too light.......hmmmmmm.

There are always trade-offs in this world. The law of numbers and physics remind us, all too often, that for every luxury or advancement, there is a price.  What you get with the Sportster is a very high torque to weight ratio that translates into the hot-rod of the Harley Davidson line of products.....if properly tuned.  The trade off is comfort and range.  The other thing you get with the Sporty is affordability. 

Case in point is my wife and I's two project bikes.  Both were purchased from craigslist advertisements for a combined total of $5,900.  Mine is an '88 4spd, chain drive 883, hers is a belt driven 5 spd '92 883. Both were in sound mechanical condition when purchased and we put a summers worth of riding on them before the tear-down this winter. This is where it gets good. Now, because of the ridiculously affordable purchase price, we have the money to strip these babies down and make them custom bikes. Since there is no lien on the titles and they were both older units that we won't cringe about removing pretty new chrome pieces from to truly customize the bikes, we are of a free conscience to do whatever we like. So why the Sportster?

I'll start with my wife. Since I cannot speak from her soul for her, I'll just cover the practical aspects of her choice. She is 5'1” and the 1” is accomplished in torso length so getting her feet on the ground was the first challenge. We found her Sporty on craigslist and the owner was a female who was also challenged in the vertical dimension. The bike was pretty, the paint and chrome was good, engine sounded good. The rear shocks had lowering mount plates installed. Talked her down to $3000 from $3800 and the deal was done.

The seat was stock and thick and the handlebars were fwd of where she'd like them to be. Setting fwd to reach the bars caused her nasty bruising from contact with the battery box on the inside of her thighs, setting back more helped this but caused her to have inadequate footing. One day we were rolling down a steep incline in a parking lot that leveled out only four or five feet from the road. When she was coming to a stop, she rolled her ankle and was unable to regain footing and dropped the bike. Just a few seconds of laying on it's side was enough to starve the oil splash on the cylinder walls and a piston skirt galled and started knocking. Well this started the chain of events that led to my wife getting the 1200 upgrade well in advance of when I thought we would do it.

At first I was apprehensive about her getting on the 1200. After getting it back up and running, I pulled it out on the road and immediately noticed the increase in torque. Though we wouldn't know just how much more torque until after the break-in was complete, it was obvious this was not what she had originally learned to ride on.....and I was jealous! It turns out that the increase in power was just what my new biker lady needed. Before the upgrade she was still sluggish from a dead stop because of feathering the clutch. Now, with the increase in torque, her launches became smooth and consistent. Her shifting became less erratic with the torque to power through misjudgments in RPM shift points and it wasn't too long before she really started pushing into those turns and letting the rubber on the rims do it's job.

We're mounting a HD Badlander low profile solo seat with all the upgrades this winter. That and a fork lowering kit, the 10” rear shocks and the raked back 5” risers for the bars should put her just in enough of a comfort zone to be disappointed when we have to stop every hour and a half for fuel.

So, yeah, good starter bike, especially with the torque of a 1200. Good ladies bike because of the light weight. Range is limited because of the peanut tank, but is concurrent with needing a break to stretch it out a little. Horse power? Well, with the torque to weight ratio, there are few other V-twins that can stay with this little torque monster up to about 5500 RPM. But, that is registering between 105 – 110 MPH and that's well more than we need to be doing on a public road.

 

For me, the Sportster is something that connects with my spirit. It's not extravagant in form or design, but is efficient and makes perfect sense for the job it was designed for. It was designed in the 1950's, an era that invokes an image in my head of guys like my grandfather, taking their experience from the war and infusing it into there life to provide for their families in a way that made them the “greatest generation”. Quietly figuring out how to get it done with what they had. The simplicity of the old Sportster made it the common man's bike. Like the regular Jo's, without a bunch of fluff, it would take you somewhere, anywhere, it's own way, like rigging an electric motor to make a homemade table saw or scribing a piece of steel for a cut to make a license plate bracket after a shift in the back of “Pappy” Lawless' filling station and garage.

The smell of the oil in my clothes as I degrease the Sporty's frame for blasting, reminds me of the smell of the work clothes my granny would wash. By today's standard; simple times, simple design, simple days before cell phones, faxes, GPS, satellite this and that. When you cruised over to a friends house to talk instead of sending a text. When I would be sitting on an old ice cream maker, cranking 'till my 8 year old arm felt as though it would fall off and then hear the rumble of that engine as it sparked off and the 'gals' walking over from the house, smiling at the handiwork of their men. I can still see the gray work pants and blue jeans of my Dad, Granddad and Great Uncle. Held up with thick, plain leather belts, with a simple squared ring buckle. Soiled from smears of gasket sealant. Hands stained with grease and fingertips marked with spots from the leaky valve of the rattle can touch up paint from Rinks' hardware section.

There were no billet trinkets or chrome boutique catalog pages. Yours was yours because you made what you couldn't buy. And, except for the dealer only parts, you bought from small town suppliers who didn't get their stock from mass produced warehouse distribution centers. It was unique to you and your area. You and your style. Your innovation. Your reckoning and SWAG's (scientific wild ass'd guess). Not looking over fitment guides to see if it applied to your model; looking at the old one to see if it looked like it would work.

That's what I see and feel when I ride my Sportster. And, that's why I decided to make it a bobber. Not a show bobber that would look like it was a metro sexual Sportster with a Mr. T starter “kit” of chrome and billet illforlosery. But a greasy smiled, rag in the pocket, nose to the stone, high test, meet me under the bleachers punk, SPORTSTER.


 

Blog Author:
Archive
Categories


Search CycleFish




Advertise Your Motorcycle Business on CycleFish
 
Copyright © 2009 CycleFish.com       |       The CycleFish website is proudly hosted at: HostGator.com