Criticism of Supra State concept

Quote :

Richie.


I am a subscriber to your updates, have purchased a couple of your products and corresponded with you about couple of issues in the past. So, hopefully, that establishes my credentials as something of a fan. However, I have to admit that I find this material - as explained in your marketing material anyway - misguided, potentially dangerous and strange.


I agree that many, many people are too nice and civilised to be any good at engaging in violence. And I agree that that obviously places them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the area of self protection. Or does it?


I believe a far healthier path to protecting yourself is to engage more with who you really are rather than trying to manufacture some alternative personality. Good, decent people have so much to live for - far more in most cases than the dysfunctional punks that often instigate street violence.


On the one hand, cultivating a deeper sense of all that's valuable to you about the world - whatever that may be - gives most decent people the reason to avoid and de-escalate violent and potentially violent situations, particularly when it comes to frivolous, ego-driven rubbish that causes so much carnage. In short, they have too much to live for. And that fact has served as very effective self-protection for countless people - far more than those who have used 'combative' techniques they have learnt from a book, CD, DVD, website, forum or from even an instructor in a training hall.


Further, when you are in the process of being attacked and you are scared, exhausted, hurt and seemingly overwhelmed, it's the things that you stand for, the things that you cherish and the rich future that you wish for that is going to drive you to fight on - to do whatever it takes to win. How many stories have you heard of of people - untrained, otherwise placid people - who kick, bite, gouge, stab and just generally pulverise people to stop an attack on them and/or their loved ones? They may not look and sound like Dirty Harry, but it has saved their lives. That is the truly powerful demonstration of the fighting spirit.


So, I would submit that engaging with who you really are, understanding what it is that you stand for and value is the true path to self protection. It is also a far healthier undertaking - you get to play with your kids, spend time with your loved one, travel, enjoy the full richness of life whatever it means to you. Trying to create some split in your personality is unnecessary, destructive and I suspect pretty speculative on your part as an effective method of self-protection.


I would also argue that it is truly empowering. It gives people the truth that the answer - to self protection and pretty much everything else in life - lies within. There are no tricks or gimmicks. It may be a cliche, but you have the power. Get fitter. Maybe take some classes. Read a bit. But don't believe that the answers are to be found anywhere beyond the self. Believing anything else destroys confidence, and people without confidence are more likely to become victims anyway.


Regards,


Jason.

Obviously I completely disagree

and find the accusation that what I teach is merely "a pretty sepculative method" bloody insulting

but there you go, an alternative point of view

If i may...

More people have defended themselves throughout history with no training other than experiential day to day living, than any, who have attended a TMA, MMA, self-defense class or trained in any form of combatives.

This is true, demonstrably because otherwise none of us would be here.

It is personality & mindset that wins out over skill set.

Combined with skill set, it is formidable.

This is what military forces train in their initial basic training. Fortitude, resistance, The "I can" attitude & the belief to use it, in the UK before they are allowed a weapon. (RAF regiment basic)

Ritchie is trying to teach cultivation of that personality, that mindset. You may not like the language used but the premise is sound.

This is not, as I believe Rich has stated, on numerous occasions, a state you want to be in except at the appropriate time.

live your life, love, laugh, & be polite & respect other people, if they act reciprocally.

i dont know where you live, but i live in a small city in a rural part of the UK, I see unneeded aggression daily, I see the results of that aggression on the human body fairly frequently.

I am not a violent person, i am a caring & sensitive soul & that person is not who i need to be when bad things happen or action needs to be taken. i know this from personal cost.

I use my training KravMaga/Kapap & Ritchies teaching to fill that gap, that area I lack, channeling rage.

Quote :

Hi Richie.


I certainly didn't mean to be offensive. Unless I have misunderstood your article, you seemed to concede yourself that your ideas are speculative:


"Primarily it should be understood that this is a concept I made up based partly on my own study of psychology, partly on personal experience and largely by reverse engineering a phenomena often spoken of in modern fiction and sensationalist media. There is no “proper science” behind this. It’s an idea, a reflection and a refinement of a naturally occurring psychological coping mechanism."


I am not a psychologist by any stretch of the imagination. However, in my lay view, what you seem to be proposing could have very serious consequences for people in at least three ways:


1. It could give someone false confidence, which they use to get themselves injured or killed.


2. It could prove to be extremely effective and someone, in putting it into practice, could use excessive force with the concomitant legal consequences.


3. It could have significant and possibly long-term and even permanent negative effects on a person's personality and, therefore, their life day-to-day.


I accept that you offer a very clear warning in your materials. That's to be commended.


However, by your own admission, the tools you are providing are extremely powerful. If they were new drugs, they would quite rightly have to be subjected to very rigorous and well established testing procedures. In other words, they would need to be backed up by proper science.


I would assume that new psychological techniques would also need to be developed in a similar fashion. Further, I would assume that anyone offering to provide psychological counselling or advice would have to be or at the least should be duly qualified, a member of recognised industry bodies and so on.


I am not accusing you of being unqualified. I am merely suggesting that if you are genuinely part of the 'psychology industry' that you would need to meet certain minimum scientific standards in propagating new methods, I would assume.


Let me also add that you are also selling at least in part to a vulnerable market - people who feel threatened or disempowered and, therefore, are more trusting and/or naive than they should be for their own best interests.


That's my take. I'm not saying that your ideas don't work. I have my doubts that they are the best route forward, but - hey - that's just my opinion. I thought that you conceded yourself that they were not based in rigorous science. Assuming I read you correctly, I merely raise the point that I question the merits of that.


Given that you claim expert status in matters of self-protection ("streetfight secrets") which is a high stakes field, position yourself as an expert in the field of applied psychology and make money out of those claims, perhaps a more scientifically robust approach would be appropriate.


I put that forward in good faith, not as an accusation.


Jason.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.if some people can by other means find the way to enable themselves to REALLY be able to deal with a criminal aggression then that is great.However many people delude themselves into thinking "well if it ever happened I would do this and that" oh really? What Richie is doing is giving those who need an eefective way to get into the kind of state you need to be in order to deal with vicious people.This about dealing with violence., so yes this and that might be possible, but what richie is dealing with is what will happen if you dont respond effectively.When dealing with violence there are always consequences, the question is which consequence scares you the most.I would rather deal with a judge on my feet than three skin heads on my ass.

QUOTED///

"1. It could give someone false confidence, which they use to get themselves injured or killed.


2. It could prove to be extremely effective and someone, in putting it into practice, could use excessive force with the concomitant legal consequences."

pick a side mate, is this in aid of winning the debate, or in finding the truth. you decided to ride this one
out and fight and i don't think you care how anymore. the two points are strikingly opposed to one another.

but to answer: building confidence is essential, it is presumed to be applied with training. we all know what
lack of confidence does--it seizes one. i'll lay odds on a greater amount of trained and untrained guys getting
their collective arses handed to them when they didn't feel they could believe in themselves or the outcome.
when they didn't have the capacity to invision their success. think on sports psychology and how mountains of
money has been put into that, it frankly wouldn't have been such a business if it didn't work and is the result
of science. the mind is just so powerful. i've known many more guys who--for lack of confidence, payed dearly.
and loads of examples of people who performed leagues better for having the idea that they could produce [and
an idea of how].

to the second, Richie is always driving in the idea of the red light--that stops one from going too far. i know because
frankly i couldn't give a shit about whether or not i go to far, to be honest...but respect Richie's point and have
slowly encorporated it into my teaching--even as i harbor no such sympathy for muggers/etc...

you're off track mate, and i think you got there in the heat of this verbal battle. have a re'look, and a cuppa. i'm
frankly stumped you've given this much time to it, as i know Richie to drive the point home constantly to keep
people from going too far with any of this, to be able to wear many hats, to have the big picture psychologist's
mind, to de'escalate. it was Richie that was teaching all of this. but there are times when in the absense of a knife
or gun, we must become such a weapon, end of.

Hey Jason, fuck you, but please don't take offense.

Jason's missives have been waffling, accusatory and condescending all in a neat package.
- but hey, that's just my opinion.
- I also put that forward in good faith. Troll.

nix wrote:

Hey Jason, fuck you, but please don't take offense.

Jason's missives have been waffling, accusatory and condescending all in a neat package.
- but hey, that's just my opinion.
- I also put that forward in good faith. Troll.

I don't know who Jason is but I disagree with his idea that you should focus on what you might lose and what's dear to you when you are in harm's way.

General Patton insisted his troops focus on doing as much violence as possible to the enemy in battle. Thinking about their girlfriends, wives and children decreased their effectiveness as soldiers and distracted from the goal of overwhelming the enemy.

I'd say General Patton trumps just about everyone when it comes to the mindset required violence whether on an inter-personal or inter-state basis.

5 Zen thunderbolts and cyber pwnage occurs



thankyou gents

Well, I can see his point of view, but what's the audience of Richards Material?

1. People who like violence and want to 'be hard'. These people have problems anyway.

2. People who genuinely want and need to learn how to be effectively violent.

When I've ever been attacked in the past I haven't simply taken a deep breath, tightened my lips, and delivered a measured beating to the aggressor fuelled by my indignance.

I've shat myself, more often than not, and then thought about all I've got to lose, and then somehow managed to overcome this. What would have been better is a confident, pre-emptive strike, and then getting out of there.

I do agree that it is a big deal to do these excercises, but there is a warning, in no uncertain terms, and there is a responsibility on the part of the user. I don't take this lightly.

whilst their might be some valid points to dig out of the icing on this cake that should be discussed, its base intent was prevarication and wheedly needly "please notice me please daddy" tactics

I suspected this but I spend so much time on my own answering emails I fear siege mentality paranoia and double think creeping in

like that cia agent who introduced himself to me today pretending to be an american tourist... pffft... sure thing buddy, I see your satellite cell phone... monitoring me for revealing their evil mind control assassin tactics so they are...


anyway I thought I could smell the garlicky spice of the angenda sausage on this cats breath, nice to have bright minds to check back with... who will also tell me when Im being a dick... usually via PM... which is so socially sensitive and Japanese of you

save fat yakuza bosssome face, domo arigato


people are free to vote with their feet on this course and any other, I honestly have never forced at gun point more than 3 or 4 (hundred) people at a time to buy my products...

I mean I know Im an evil black cloaked money grabbing materialistic charlatan etc etc etc but there are only so many hours in the day for me to fill with my dastardly deceptive plots


walkejoirgjevgfmkjgkldfjopoiopioimlsdjfklsdjkfljiowrhthgjkvn -049kfgr9guj9nlkjn

I don't trust this fella..

Wow.

How very poor to engage in inane name calling and other shoddy and immature attempts at argument. I don’t know you at all, Richie, so I can’t really say that I expected more. It’s still pretty disappointing. My original post was a private email to you, and was never intended or requested to be put up on a public forum. Suddenly, I’m being attacked publicly by you and your cohorts. Anyway, we move on.

Fighting is a high risk activity. People get seriously injured and die in street fights. Unless it’s your line of work, I don’t think you ever want to get confident with it. And if you are not delusional, I don’t think you really can. If you are sane, you will see that there are always just too many unknowns and risks. There’s a reason why people lack confidence about violence. It’s an evolutionary mechanism to get them to avoid placing themselves in harm’s way and stay alive. That’s my opinion. I think understanding and accepting that fact is probably of far more value in terms of true self-protection than some lesson in combative visualization or whatever.

It’s not like seeking help trying to overcome an irrational fear of, say, public speaking. That’s an irrational fear because the only harm that can be had is to the ego. In my view, by contrast, fear of street fighting is entirely rational and should be respected and very often heeded. Go and read ‘The Gift of Fear’ if you disagree. I found it compelling.

Remember back to when you were learning to drive. Undoubtedly, you were nervous, scared and lacked confidence. Entirely normal. Then, over the days and weeks, months and years of practice, you got more and more confident as you clocked up the miles. Imagine if there was a guy who offered to help you become confident at driving on day one (or day whatever) with mental reprogramming. I think we’d all believe it was stupid because driving is a high stakes activity and a lack of confidence keeps people from getting ahead of themselves and getting themselves and others killed.

When it comes to sports psychology, things are very different. For starters, it’s about sport. The stakes may be high – money, fame, world championships – but they are generally not matters of life and death. Further, they are tools that are generally shared with competing athletes who just need that extra 5 percent or so of mental reinforcement to help them get over the line.

So, in essence, I find some of Richie’s ideas dangerous and misguided. They offer people a path to confidence in an area where a little confidence can be a deadly thing, especially when it’s not necessarily backed by any real fighting ability. Maybe you should be scared of fighting because you can’t do it.

I have a problem with the entire notion of shortcuts. Confidence should be tethered to reality. If you have been a bouncer for 10 years, been in thousands of confrontations and still feel a lack of confidence, then go and see a psychologist. Otherwise, you are entirely normal. I am also suspicious that some of Richie’s concepts have not been subjected to the rigours of research and testing one would expect from a new psychological theory being sold in the marketplace, especially in such a fraught area.

One other point. Have you ever read the stories of people who get into special forces units or work as bouncers for extended periods in dangerous environments? To a man, they were racked by doubts and fears, had moments of despair and low confidence. What made them special? They pushed on, toughed things out, found the resources within themselves to persevere and overcome. They didn’t turn to tricks. They struggled. They fought – more against themselves and their own weaknesses than anything else – and won.

You realize that mindless, groundless confidence is generally less important than determination and perseverance. As I read in a book about a spec-ops operator recently who was terrified of parachuting, ultimately, you don’t have to like it, you just have to do it. Success is more about character, willpower and beating your doubts and fears than mental tricks (based on thin formal evidence) that you probably wouldn’t have the confidence or wherewithal to use in the moment of terror anyway.

That’s life. That’s what makes human achievement on whatever scale so amazing. Be you. Back yourself. Accept your weaknesses. Recognise that you are fallible, that despite your best efforts, you may come up short. You inevitably will die. Eventually. Everyone – no matter how tough and experienced – will eventually be overcome when the odds are stacked sufficiently high. Again, that’s life.

The answer: Work hard. Aim to get better every day. Be humble about your successes. Be forgiving about your failures. Be respectful of danger. And if someone tries taking everything you have, fucking smash them with everything you have. Fight. And I have no doubt that if the matter is serious and not based on ego, you will. It may not be textbook, Hollywood cool, but it will be an honest manifestation of your will to survive, which is already deep within you. There is no need to reprogram your brain. God, evolution, whatever, has already given you everything you need.

Do I have an agenda? Well, I’m not the one flogging DVDs!

Jason.

you flatter yourself

"you" are not being "attacked publicly" as nobody knows who you are, because I didnt give your name out...

I see you on the other hand have already gone half way to doing so though

and in your very first post


but you have no agenda of course


if you had bothered to read the posts replying to your inflammatory patronising drivel - of course, why would you though?- you would have seen that your issues have been answered quite, quite decisively

and not by me, by my "cohorts"

now to your post, well well, we do reveal ourselves dont we?

Quote :

Fighting is a high risk activity. People get seriously injured and die in street fights.

they do?

Quote :

There’s a reason why people lack confidence about violence. It’s an evolutionary mechanism to get them to avoid placing themselves in harm’s way and stay alive.

it is?

Quote :

I think understanding and accepting that fact is probably of far more value in terms of true self-protection than some lesson in combative visualization or whatever.

understanding and accepting that our "evolutionary mechanism" of reacting with overwhelming, mind numbing, body freezing fear and panic is of more value thatn trying to retrain that reaction?

really?

its of more value to just accept that?

is it?

you sure?

Quote :

hat’s an irrational fear because the only harm that can be had is to the ego.

it is?

mate I could go one, but what you need to realise is that what your saying has been VERY WELL COVERED by me in the material and discussed to DEATH on this very forum... I wonder how much time you spent reading the forum before posting

no god, dont tell me, I cant bear another bombastic diatribe

Quote :

Go and read ‘The Gift of Fear’ if you disagree. I found it compelling.

oh did you really? you pompous arse

Quote :

Imagine if there was a guy who offered to help you become confident at driving on day one (or day whatever) with mental reprogramming. I think we’d all believe it was stupid because driving is a high stakes activity and a lack of confidence keeps people from getting ahead of themselves and getting themselves and others killed.

you didnt even read the product description properly before writing me your first email did you? so frantically keen to spill words at me you were you didnt even BOTHER TO READ IT PROPERLY!!!

Quote :

So, in essence, I find some of Richie’s ideas dangerous and misguided. They offer people a path to confidence in an area where a little confidence can be a deadly thing, especially when it’s not necessarily backed by any real fighting ability. Maybe you should be scared of fighting because you can’t do it.

do you even know any of my material?

Maybe you should be scared of fighting because you can’t do it. is practically a verbatim line from me

Quote :

I am also suspicious that some of Richie’s concepts have not been subjected to the rigours of research and testing one would expect from a new psychological theory being sold in the marketplace, especially in such a fraught area.

"a new psychological theory"?

NOW PLEASE READ THIS and stop wasting my time this is

direct from my sales copy

which you clearly havent read

Primarily it should be understood that this is a concept I made up based partly on my own study of psychology, partly on personal experience and largely by reverse engineering a phenomena often spoken of in modern fiction and sensationalist media. There is no “proper science” behind this. It’s an idea, a reflection and a refinement of a naturally occurring psychological coping mechanism. This is in no way gospel, it’s just a model of reality that might help you gain more confidence if used properly. It may also make you less sociable, less sane and less happy if used properly. Caveat Emptor


caveat emptor

thats in MY "sales copy" it doesnt get MORE CAUTIOUS than that mate, I defy you to cite any other single peice of martial arts related sales copy that advocates CAVEAT EMPTOR in its OWN COPY and says "I made this up partly from fiction and sensationalist media" ANYWHERE

EVER

JUST ONE

find me one ... you cant can you?


How much more warning and qualification can I give reasonably?



No agenda eh? pffft.... other than wasting my time

why dont you just cut to the chase and tell us whose works you are advocating or are you promoting yourself here?

touting a "new psychological theory" am I?

well I know Ive only got a Bsc in a British Psychology Society recognised Psych degree but as I understand it (in my own wooly headed, silly sort of a way)

because Ive said in my own sales copy which if you want to read it again IN FULL THIS TIME is available from here http://www.streetfightsecrets.net/41.html

Quote :

It’s plainly observable that we “switch state” when addressing different people in different environments. We can notice it in ourselves and in others. Isn’t that true?




Think about it.




There. That is all the proof I’m offering, you either see it for yourself or you don’t.

I dont think thats enough proof for a "new psychological theory"

Im not sure

but I dont think, and dont quote me on this, you can turn around and go "there see it for yourself or piss off", I think "they" (those pesky academics with their scientific procedures) frown on that

but Im not sure

no, no wait, thinking about it

Im 85% sure that failing to offer scientifically verified "proof" means that, aw shucks, my ambition to "sell a new psychology theory" might fail

oh well, never mind


now, I ALREADY told you in a private email that this was NOT my ambition and yet you raise the issue AGAIN publicly

proof that you are a prevaricating, agenda sausage munching troll



bye bye troll, back under the bridge you go