Tuesday, May 14, 2013

CofV 12.4: Distinguishing Social and Asocial

There might be one more in this series, might have to write about time and distance.

What follows combines with everything before, but especially with the other elements in 12.0-12.3.
12- Identifying Danger
12.1- Adrenaline Signs
12.2- You
12.3- Terrain
In some ways this all comes close to the Intent-Means-Opportunity triangle.  An immediate threat has to have all three.  Most of the time, you are the resource, the source of intent.  the threat is his or her own means and the terrain and your behaviors supply the opportunity.  But that's kind of simplistic.

Social and asocial are done for different reasons and so they have different requirements, from the bad guy's point of view.  The primary difference is that in most cases, social violence requires an audience.  For asocial violence the audience magically turns into witnesses. Some of the types of social, like the bonding GMD, are social within the group but asocial between the group and victim.  And some, maybe most, bad guys will try to get social benefits from asocial crimes (bragging about a mugging, for instance) or vice versa (going through the other guy's pockets after winning a Monkey Dance.)

So that's the big one.  Presence of others: generally social.  Absence of witnesses: generally asocial. Presence of a bonded group and you are alone: bad day for you.
Exception: certain types of predatory acts do use the crowds as camouflage. But by their nature, they can't be extended scenarios.

Second, the behaviors are different.  Social behaviors, even if they are going to violence, are normal.  We perceive them as normal because they stay on a script that we all know.  One of the things that makes predators so effective is that:
1) We are wired to assume and expect the scripts (corollary: when someone is clearly going off script most victims don't recognize it)
2) Many, especially the socially skilled and especially sexual predators, mask their predatory tactics in the social scripts.  For instance, there is a natural progression in romance where a couple meet, enjoy each other and gradually want to spend longer times in more privacy.  Which is also exactly what a process predator wants.  Predators learn to accelerate the natural process.

For our purposes, I'll call the social behaviors (including the social violence behaviors) 'normal.'  People don't consciously recognize normal, and without that recognition, abnormal (predatory) behavior is often missed, dismissed or excused. Missed- not seen at all.  Dismissed- seen, but ignored as unimportant. Excused- acknowledged as odd but doesn't count because there is probably a perfectly good reason.  So victims either don't see or ignore the warning signs.

Aside- One of the secret deeper reasons that I teach SD law as an articulation class instead of a decision making class is that if the person can explain things to a jury, they can also explain why they need to act to themselves in the critical seconds.  That helps some people slip the leash.

So you have to know normal consciously before you can recognize abnormal.

Basics are proxemics, facing and stance, hands and structure, and group behavior.

Normal proxemics varies widely across different cultures.  In North America and most of the places in Europe that I've visited, the comfortable distance for a stranger to stand is about a half pace beyond arms reach.  You will get a creepy feeling if people stand too close and you will elicit a creepy feeling if you approach inside the bubble.  It's an easy experiment to do.  This distance changes with intimacy.  Acquaintances are slightly closer, friends closer than that and intimates very close.  And there is a very particular range+eye contact that you will see with cons who have done prison time together-- standing very close but looking past each other's shoulder.

This bubble is not round.  It's best to feel this rather than read it, but that creepy feeling isn't engendered by a stranger approaching from the side until he is much closer.  Well within striking range.  It is even closer behind.  This is why we can handle stadium seating and sitting together on buses, but tables are a certain width.

The normal approach is to stand in front of you at the edge of the bubble.  An experienced predator will, while acting friendly and social, generally approach from the flank to be in striking range. (Not addressing ambushes from the rear, only the stuff you can see coming.) So, normal is from the front, out of range.  Anything else should put you on alert.  But remember this is very different in different cultures.  If you try to insist on your bubble in Arabia or South America do not expect to make friends or be accepted.  There are profound tactical reasons for maintaining a certain distance but sometimes the strategic reasons trump the tactical.  And remember, you are looking at signs of abnormality for danger, and normal/abnormal is measured from the threat's conditioning, not yours.  Someone from a close culture who maintains distance may read as sensible to you, but he might well do it because of mental illness or excessive aggression.

Facing and stance.  The normal monkey dance fighting stance is one of the stupidest possible ways to stand for fighting.  The combatants tend to be up on their toes, bouncing, arms akimbo and with feet and hips perpendicular (side to side) to the threat. And usually tense with muscles bulging.  Slow, stupid, no base and with targets exposed.  It is an attempt to look big, like a cat puffing out its fur.  Understand that even well trained martial artists also tend to do this if they get their ego involved.  It's an emotional reaction and is the default if you respond emotionally.  It is profoundly inefficient.

Almost all normal (social) interactions will have that foot position.  Social violence will have the crappy posture and foot position but will violate the bubble from the front.

A predator will blade up.  He will have his power in line with his target (you).  One of the elements that people miss, ignore or dismiss is that he may keep his shoulders and hips square with his feet bladed.  feet are important, not the rest.  The other thing is that if the threat approaches from the flank and faces the same direction as you it feels friendly (facing the same direction mirrors your body language) and the feet are naturally positioned for the power to be in line with the target.

Inexperienced predators may not know this.  Early crimes it is common for the threat to have no more experience than you do.  (He will get mentored later, or learn by trial and error).  So you may be mugged by someone giving all the signals of social violence (up on toes, shitty stance, loud) but with a gun.  Is a gun part of normal Monkey Dance behavior?  No it is not.  Therefor this is abnormal therefor probably predatory.  And this situation is very touchy.  Resource predation plus a fragile ego and a firearm is a recipe for disaster.  If the threat feels endangered or disrespected he will erupt.

That's feet.  Next hands. If there is a weapon, that tells you two things.  First, this is a potentially very bad day and second, he wanted you to see it for a reason.  If you live in a weapon culture, you know the rules of social violence (dueling) in that culture better than I do.  In my culture, monkey dances don't involve guns or knives.  If a weapon is involved it is either a predator or someone who was recently humiliated in a Monkey Dance trying to get his manhood back.

Aside-- Do what you need to do to survive, but never humiliate any one.  It never serves any purpose other than to stroke your own ego.

If a hand is out of sight, it could be good or bad.  No one keeps a straight arm with a hand hidden behind a thigh.  No one just rests his hand on his back hip under his jacket. But a lot of people stand with their hands in their back pockets and a flat hand like that means they feel no threat.  (This is a stacking point here: unusual body positioning plus signs of adrenaline?  Big red flag.  An alert individual showing extremely relaxed body language in a clearly dangerous situation?  Big red flag.)

Precursor moves.  Most people, for whatever reason don't just hit.  They pull back first.  They think it feels more powerful.  This chambering or loading is often disguised as turning away or glancing around-- and that last sweeping glance of the area is a final witness check just before things go down.

Groups and places.  If there are only two people at a bus stop and they are strangers, they keep distance.  All guys know the urinal rules.  There is a pattern to where people stand and which direction they face as  an elevator fills.  People that know each other stand together and talk.  If they see you, go quiet and split up, that's likely bad.

So with groups you look for coordinated movement, any separation that makes you the apex of a triangle or any static positioning that makes you walk between two people.  In pack behavior you look for groups (usually young men) moving purposefully or trying to intimidate/get a reaction from others.

All of this could be expanded, but these are the basics.

5 comments:

Natalie said...

Been reading through your blog and some of your books. This topic is an interesting one, for me I am not sure if I agree on the social/asocial difference. Everything to me feels like asocial violence, I don't really get the "safer" social violence aspect? Of course I am female so maybe that is why. But it all seems to be on the same scale to me. "Social" violence still feels like resource or process to me: gaining feelings of power, enjoying the process of watching someone humiliated, gaining status from the group... I've always felt exactly the same about both kinds, the difference to me is in the squeamishness/limits of what the social group as a whole conformed to (hence much of it being non-physical or non life-threatening violence, but the psychology being pretty much the same).
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, it's hard for me to feel any real difference between those two types of violence. Personally I have found it easier to spot and avoid the predator stuff, than maneuvering Monkey dynamics. Outlook or upbringing/experience?

Rory said...

Natalie-
Written word is always a little off. Process and resource predators come from two different levels of Maslow's hierarchy. I only feel comfortable lumping them together because their tactics and to some extent mindset tend to be similar, and very different from the social conflict.
Two ways that might help you envision. And if I thought this were clearer than the usual model I'd use them, but they might be clearer for you.
1) Social violence is a form of communication. The person is hurt to send a message, whether that message is "You need to act the way I want" or "I'm bigger than you." Asocial violence is about something else- internal feelings for the process predator (the victim is like a tissue) stuff for the resource predator (victim is like the can that food comes in.)
2) another possible way to look at it is internal/external. Social is mostly about messages going out. Again, communication. And that includes making examples. Asocial is about stuff coming in, either goods in resources or feelings in process. Some of the feelings the process predator wants mirror some of the goals in social violence, but the desires are aberrant enough that they need to be hidden, and the victim needs to be dehumanized.

I don't prefer either of these models, but they might help. I find the distinction critical because what will encourage social violence discourages asocial and vise versa. they are very different in avoidance, de-escalation and, if it comes to that, physical defense.

Jim said...

Another thought on the differences:

Process and predator violence doesn't care. (Asocial) You're not going to defuse a process or predator anymore than the moose will defuse the wolf or the lion be talked down from taking down a gazelle. What they care about isn't the person -- it's the means to the goal that the person happens to be. If they back off of the attack, it's because they've decided that the risk is too great for the reward, or they've been injured seriously enough that they can't continue, and they're slinking off to fight another day. There's no emotion or feeling about it... It's all goal. (Yeah, that should lead you somewhere about professional use of force...)

Social violence will virtually always involve emotions and feelings. What other people think of what happens matters. And the scripts are different between men and women, and to some extent in different cultures. Social violence will much more often include an "out" for the victim. I'm a guy -- so this is going to come more from a guy point of view. (I'll have to think about articulating some of the differences in social violence between women... other than that it's often a lot colder, and way, way sneakier. Guys blow up and get it on... gals simmer.) I'm in a bar, and a guy decides I'm staring at his date too much... He confronts me, "Hey, why you staring at my gal?!" The implied out is if I knuckle under to him, apologize and probably slink out muttering to my buddies about how he's lucky I can't afford to get arrested/banned from the bar/whatever.

One note: There is an important class of asocial violence that will include an out, if it's done right. That's professional violence, like when cops or bouncers use it. I'm a cop; you resist arrest, the implicit contract is if you stop resisting, I'll stop hurting you. That's still asocial/goal oriented because the professional doesn't care about an audience, doesn't care about what the subject feels... It's about getting the job done.

OfficeSpace said...

Appreciate this analysis and this theme too. The barrier between Asocial & Social is sometimes thin if it's not inexistant!







emploi maroc
recrutement maroc
emploi maroc 2013
recrutement maroc 2013
portail emploi au maroc
stage maroc
emploi au maroc
recrutement au maroc
emploi au maroc 2013
recrutement au maroc 2013
emploi au maroc 2014
stage au maroc

Natalie said...

Thanks Rory. It's kind of hard for me because all violence feels pretty similar to me on the receiving end, but I see what you are driving at on the "giving" end. The way I am understanding it is the difference between public and private violence - for the "social" violence, an audience (even of just one or two other people) is critical, because the message is what's important. The asocial violence requires privacy - almost intimacy - because the point is not the message, it's the act or direct gain. Does that sound right?
Another way I could see it, would be to say that social violence can be manipulated or navigated by the intended victim in order to avoid it, whereas that would be very difficult for asocial violence.

Good stuff. Always interested to see your new posts!