The Startle/Flinch Response

Hi Nick,

I've got a few questions for you relating to part of your post to Kaarl. I'm asking for a better understanding and my questions have nothing to do with the thread on which you posted......

Nick Hughes wrote:.........It's a little bit like that photo of the broken baseball bat zinging into a crowd of people who are all flinching that proves that all people flinch..only it doesn't. All it proves is that all untrained people flinch. I bet you a million dollars if that crowd had all been black belts of mine they'd have all had their hands up in a fighting stance as that is, after thousands of reps, their default flinch.

Firstly, isn't the Startle/Flinch Response (SFR) hard-wired? I understand that training can facilitate an instant transition from the SFR into some sort of 'Fighting Stance' or 'Crazy Monkey', etc, etc, but can you actually bypass the SFR altogether with training?

What would your guy's reaction's be to someone or something that they were not so aware of? What I mean by that is - and using the broken Baseball bat analogy as an example - if you're watching a Baseball game then it's far easier to act or react to a broken baseball bat right in front of you and coming from that distance, could the same be said of your guys if they were a lot closer and if they caught movement (the broken Baseball bat) out of the corner of their eye?

The SFR is quick, there's no doubting that, but would your guy's reactions/responses be quicker as I'm not so sure?

Take care,

Garth.

To answer your question completely Garth I'd refer you to Hock's site.

I've mentioned before (and I think Brian has as well) Hock is one guy who stays right on top of the very latest in research as it pertains to anything in the field of human combat...he pays big money to attend university lectures etc if it has any connection at all.

Other instructors...and I've been guilty of it myself...continue to use information that has been debunked or disproven (Hick's bullshit law for eg) because we don't keep up to date on refinements or research etc.

As an aside, one of the latest is the old 3000 to 5000 reps to make a movement automatic which has now been discovered to be bollocks. (I always had my doubts because when I was freefalling in Africa they showed me the move to stabilize and pull my rip cord about ten times, and I practiced it and visualized another few hundred, before tossing me out of the plane and, lo and behold, I found it, pulled it and made it down...as did everyone else.

Anyway, back to your question. To begin with there isn't one default flinch movement...latest studies have shown the response is different depending on the stimulus i.e. a loud noise will generate a different response, than an insect flying at someone, which will be different from a pinch etc.

Here is a snippet from Hock's site from some of the research by Dr Simmons but I highly recommend going to Hock's and using the search function on the word "flinch" as there is much to be learned there...

Dr. Simmons nicknamed such a list of startle responses as “The Startle Museum” and the following are a collection of observed reactions from all prior research. Since the 1930s the stimuli for research has almost exclusively been sudden, audible bursts and some lesser experiments with blinding flashes, often called "acoustic startle-inducing stimulus" or " acoustic 'go' stimulus."



We would be safe to say that some of these in-the-field, "Boo experiments" did accompany various aspects of physical motion stimuli, such as sudden hand waves, surprise touches or pinches from the sides or rear (based on photographs in these research books). There is some visual stimulus used in the "Boo experiments," along with the sound. The below museum list also includes the obvious, incoming physical stimuli such as objects being thrown at the subjects and hand, arm strikes and lunges (probably no kicks) at the subject. I have tried to note where possible the audible, visual and physical stimuli used when I could find it in these studies.
The Startle Museum


The “museum” includes: (and in no specific order)



1) Two arms up in some manner (possible from audible and/or physical stimuli. Blocks versus incoming physical stimuli will be directional-specific to counter the perceived attack - such as in the following versions).

2) One arm up and one arm down (if the subject detects even the quick and remote possibility of a physical attack coming in high and/or medium-height. This reaction is decided in milliseconds.

3) One arm up and one arm down with a knee raise (if the subject detects even the quick and remote possibility of a physical attack incoming in high, medium and low. Decided in milliseconds). Body will support movement.

4) Knee raise (if the subject detects the possibility of a physical attack incoming very low, such as snakes, animals, insects - often the prized test tools and subject matter of the clinical psychologist. The arms may hardly move ).

5) Arm or arms may bend. They may not bend (from sound stimuli. Incoming physical objects will usually be quickly blocked by arms instinctively. This may cause the arm to bend or not bend).

6) Dropping items (from both physical and sound shock. The hands are just as likely to open as they are to clinch when the body is shocked).

7) Untargeted throwing as hand-held objects randomly leave the opening hand (from both physical and sound stimuli. The hands are just as likely to open as they are to clinch when the body is shocked). .

Targeted throwing at the subject that first caused the initial startle (at source of stimuli).

9) Striking out intentionally at source of audible or physical stimuli.

10) Flailing the arms wildly (usually from audible stimuli).

11) The wave - where the body and arms rock up and down as if a vertical wave passed through them (usually from audible stimuli).

12) Jumping up, forward, back or to the sides (from both audible and physical stimuli) The arms may or may not respond.

13) Knee bends and knee buckling (from both audible and physical stimuli).

14) Falling down.

15) Ducking and/or cowering (from audible and physical stimuli).

16) Fainting.

17) A kind of sudden, temporary heart attack.

18) Clutching of one's own throat (explained as an instinctive protective reflex).

19) Clutching of one's own face, palms on the sides of head.

20) Clutching of one's own chest about the heart.

21) Freezing into the pre-startle position (usually from audible stimuli. The body usually, reflexively blocks an incoming physical stimuli).

22) Blurting out and talking nonsense, or cursing.

23) Matching or mirroring – the startled person instantly matches the arm pose and body position of the person startling them.

24) Over 40 different, recorded facial expressions

25) A practiced fighting stance (from sound stimuli surprise. If physical attacked, the subject is likely to forego a stance and instantly respond/block the physical stimuli).

26) Obedience – in some cases, people are subject to instantly following the orders of the ambusher.

27) Cultural – experts have recorded responses that are uniquely culturally, as in family, tribe, region and/or nationality.

28) Idiosyncratic, individual specific responses (sometimes unexplainable. One main conclusion drawn from this list is that many startles are highly idiosyncratic to an individual).

29) Customized responses. Clutching a rail or furniture when falling. Puling away from "hot stove." The body quickly adapts with motions to save itself that do not resemble other motions.

30) Some combinations of the above.

Responses may vary depending upon the condition of the person. People may be tired, sick, under the influence of fatigue, alcohol or drugs. Dr. Landis reported as early as 1937 that “the pattern varies in degree of manifestation among individuals and in any one individual from time to time.”

To answer your question about being caught out by something we're not ready for...yes, I've had various people over the years hide behind walls etc mucking about jumping out and surprising me, I've been uptown when a car has backfired, or glasses have dropped and smashed on the floor right behind me...my reaction is to spin into my stance (which usually gets a laugh from people who don't know better). I saw Roger Thompson, a computer programing wizard who was a black belt in Oz do it when my brother and I snuck into his house one morning and found him asleep when he should have been up waiting for us. We crept over with pillows and did this massive kai and rained the pillows on him...Roger came out of full on sleep mode to hands up in his kamae ready to go.



Nick

Garth,

I was going to go hunting for some old clips I have of assassination attempts and bodyguard reactions but...I thought about you wondering if they react because they're expecting trouble.

So, I found this one instead. This guy is caught completely unawares...check out his response...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BmgFO30Uo&feature=related

enjoy

Nick

Nick

I think we have had this discussion before but:

I think the way you stated it before was that there is not always a flinch response!
However im taking it now that you are saying there is a flinch response but this can be trained?? Is this what you mean 'cos if it is im in full agreement with you
But it is definitley still a flinch - regardless of how it manifests itself surely?

If that bat was heading towards one of your students then he would FLINCH into a ready stance wouldn't he?

si6.5 (you've been promoted 'cause you agree with me )

Mate, to be honest I don't know. That is the stuff the good Drs figure out in labs and then tell us. What's the old saying...some people take a tree and study the roots while others just pick and enjoy the fruit.

What I do know is you can train to the point where your training becomes the new default mechanism so I have no idea why people want to look at a bunch of untrained people and take the stance "see, look at them, that's what they do, so that's what we should do."

I'd rather look at better examples of what trained people are capable of and aspire to their levels. In other words I think too many people sell themselves way too short.

Look at Kaarl's bs about Terry O'Neill and Gary Spiers...because we hear those names he (and others) assume they're exceptions to the rule and because they're (appear to be) so small in numbers it's completely unrealistic to expect any of the rest of us can get there. What an absolutely pathetic fucking underachieving outlook.

"I don't want to go to school and better myself, and become a millionaire because look, the bulk of the world lives in poverty so lets all set our sights low and do what they do." Spare me (to quote a mate)

It's absolute bullshit that only a few people can do what Gary and Terry can do. For an explanation let me turn to acting. Someone famous (can't remember who) said Los Angeles is filled with brilliant, hugely capable, incredible actors...most of them though are waiting tables. What he means is that even though there is a plethora of good actors only a few of them will make it big, and have the charisma and the connections to make it into the public eye. It doesn't mean they're no good.

So, how many Gary's and Terry's are there that aren't editors of their own magazine (Terry was the owner/publisher of FAI and Gary was his mate) who'll never be in the public eye that are just as capable. Tons of them I expect. I know that's a fair assumption because of Bob Jones' crew in Oz. He had 500 schools and 5,000 black belts and we did security for every rock act, and most major venues nationwide...the reputation of those guys, especially in the bad old days, was akin to that of the Hell's Angels i.e. don't fuck with them, ever. They didn't get that rep because Bob rose to the top of the heap...he got it because he trained an army of ball tearing street fighters.

Sorry for the rant, and sorry for the tangent, but I get fed up with all this "we're so dumb we can't possibly be capable of stringing together two punches in a fight because look at all the untrained people on video and see what they're not capable of."

Back on topic, as mentioned...I don't think it matters if it's a flinch or we don't flinch, or it's a trained flinch...what I do know, unequivocally, is that loud noises, ambushes and things that go bump in the night do NOT make me flinch into some position as in the baseball photo before I start throwing punches back...my reaction is much more like the black kid ambushed by the gorilla, and that comes with training. Why then would I want to train a flinching type of wrapping my damn head up first (because that's what the untrained do...without the training by the way) when I could train something far more effective?

Rant mode off and I hope I answered the question.

Nick

Nick,

Starting with a question mate, exactly what position would a trained individual adopt in the same circumstances - that of having a broken baseball bat incoming in such a fashion?

Personally I would hit much the same 'shape' as the majority of the people in that crowd scene, and try as get as much disposable surface area of my body between my head and that fast-moving spinning chunk of wood - and I reckon anyone, trained or not, would be a fool to do anything different.

Catching the bat, or blocking/parrying it, is for highly prepared demonstrations only - evading it would need more room than those people had. Show me a guard position that would offer the same level of protection and is significantly different?
Sometimes it seems that there is an 'either/or' school of thought regarding instinctive and trained methods - when in reality there can easily be both.

Some instinctive actions are certainly less than optimal, and these definitely should be trained and conditioned out - but equally there are a multitude of trained actions that are just as negative, and plenty that are downright idiotic - which is worse, doing something stupid instinctively or deliberately?

As for the argument that trained men have been beating untrained men for years - actually this can be extended to have been the way of things since the beginning of our species. However, the counter-point is that untrained men have also been beating trained men for the same duration - so the only real point to make is that someone gets beat!

Obviously training helps - that's what it is there for and the above paragraph serves more as devil's advocate than anything else - after all I'm in the training business - but what is important when all is said and done is the person.

The fact that a highly trained individual can prevail against seemingly all comers isn't just down to his training - his untrained counterpart can have an equally impressive record. What is worth bearing out here is the issue of being 'untrained' because these guys certainly are not, in most people's perception of the word. Just because they haven't been through the usual martial arts route does not mean that they haven't diligently refined their particular methods of putting people away. Many times this 'self-taught/self realised' approach is equally as, if not more, potent than the 'properly' trained version. It's worth adding that by this I do not refer to the wannabee clowns that teach themselves from books/DVDs/Youtube and play in their garages with impressionable mates, I am instead referring to the seasoned fighters who put people away on a much too regular basis - trained and untrained.

As for the ascendency and superiority of the trained martial artist - well I have put plenty of them down over the years mate, and a great many were not as tough as the various scumbags I've come up against - often being much easier marks due to their training, and some I've beaten simply by virtue of overwhelming violence and physicality.

There's a reason why most of the good, tried, tested and proven stuff out there looks so similar - there's a reason why every cage fighter looks like he went to the same school of fighting, no matter what his background, and that it also bears an uncanny resemblance to how two drunks fight - obvious skill and conditioning aside the base tactical model is almost identical.

Mick

Mick,

Thought this one might get ya...

Right, I don't have a ton of time..(have to go and eat before I shrivel up and die)

But here's the pic in question




Let's look at the efficacy of our untrained players shall we...

Guy in top L in the blue check shirt and hat with a "T" would get hit if it was a punch.

Down from him, orange shirt and red cap, would also get hit.

To the right of him, yellow bracelet, he would probably be ok.

Both women would definitely be hit square in the face.

Guy in the blue denim shirt is good to go but not in a good position to begin any counter attack

The guy, beneath the leg of the woman in yellow looks like he'd eat one as well.

Guy in the yellow t-shirt (partially obscured) up behind the man in the blue cap would get hit

Man behind the orange shirt/red cap looks good to go.

So, out of eight untrained people we see, two are covered effectively, one is also good but in no position to respond and the rest would all get drilled.


Here's another picture of the same scenario




Sorry bubba...not one untrained person here covering their faces at all though the old boy in the blue top looks like he might get out of the way.

So it would seem the untrained flinch response ain't that good after all.

I'll come back later and add some more but I bet you can relate to having to get some food in

Nick

I have a few thoughts on this subject and I admit they have changed to a degree over time. generally I don't give the "flinch" response much thought anymore. I don't find it all that important if other things in your training are in place.

Lately I would be more inclined to work from a flinch than to use the flinch. The human body tends to have natural reactions to things and I have, as of late, been looking into not changing these natural responses but rather working with them. Blinking is natural if something comes at your eye and there are some who try to over ride this function for various reasons. Remove the natural protection of a closed eye lid and even a spec of sand can scratch the eye and you could be worse off than the punch you thought you’d miss due to blinking. Choose your poison I guess. A recent study has shown that when people get frightened their eyes tend to open wide as does their mouth; I’m sure everyone is familiar with this fright face. That is because the body wants to be able to see better so the reflex is to open the eyes wide and it needs air to help the body function under the stress thus the open mouth to allow more air in.

I think that when we get startled and flinch into a defensive position it is probably (basically) a good thing. As it applies to self defense there may be a little more to consider. For me personally, I don’t really consider it at all; I don’t think it matters much. I would tend to let the body do what it is designed to do rather than feed it some new designs. However I might “add” an extra. What I mean is that rather then flinching from being startled and just going into the natural protect mode, we should be able to continue from there seamlessly. The normal reaction to a surprise at something coming at the face may be to raise both hands in front to protect. That leaves both hands doing the same thing. If you train to have one protect and one strike that is working from the flinch. A normal person may throw up their hands to protect their face if you throw something at them. A ball player may naturally end up catching it. Good? What if it was hot or sharp? But than again that may be a "reflex, rather than a flinch? Where is the line that differentiates? A flinch may also tense your body or put you moving away at times when you may be better moving in. This is where training comes in so that rather than “use’ the flinch, you flow from it. What I think it boils down to is experience and awareness as well as control. Some people may immediately strike at the first startle which isn’t bad if it short circuits the attack. But what if you are preoccupied and get surprised by your wife or child? Strike on reflex? I think martial arts teach control…control of your body as well as technique. Some take this too far and end up learning to punch a spec of dust off someone’s nose without hurting them or kicking within a ¼ inch of someone’s face. I think they end up learning control to an exaggeration and become skilled in “not hitting.” The real control is learning how much force to use and to be able to control that. Like someone putting their hand to a flame. Feel the heat and back off or get closer and risk getting burned. The same for your attacker, how much you hurt him can depend on how much he wants to push. But that takes control of your skills and much training. When surprised I get startled and I flinch, the trick is to remain in control and be decisive. I don’t want to knock anyone out at my surprise party when I open the door!

The next issue is flinch in defense. I think it works better in defense and there is a difference (for me) between fighting and defense. Personally I don’t defend. If you flinch as I stated above it is a natural occurrence in humans; a defensive mechanism. Defensive doesn’t mean “self defense” There is no counter attack in a flinch. It comes from fear of getting hurt. Do you train to overcome fear? Maybe some don’t get afraid; I really don’t dwell on that or bravery. I can tell you that I do and have in many situations that were potentially life threatening. I’m no super fighter and I have had my share of upsets and mistakes for sure. Some people may train to deal with a live situation but if they haven't been there, I don’t think anyone can imagine the feeling, or what goes through your mind (as well as what doesn’t), when you know your life is about to end. Talk about the body wanting to do what comes natural? Fear is natural and I can work with it, as anyone can. The problem comes when fear turns to panic; now you have a problem. You don’t want that. So you can flinch and duck away, which may be natural or you can flinch, duck away and then “continue” and move under and in or whatever. This comes from not panicking and then having fighting experience. Then you work “from” your natural reactions. But as I said, that is defensive. I tend to think in terms of fighting rather than self defense. Come at me with bad intentions or take a swing at me or whatever, and we are in a fight. I’m not looking at my first line of defense or block this and grab that, I’m only looking, at this point, to kick your ass and do it as quickly as possible. I think too many people focus way too intently on the beginning of an attack. That is definitely important and it can save you from being knocked out immediately (or killed). I also understand that some people are involved in jobs (bouncers/doormen, security etc) in which they have to focus on these things. They can’t just cream everyone…not good for business! But I’m not in that business and there are others looking for self defense training who aren’t either and for them, a different approach may be considered. For “me” I prefer to focus a lot of attention to the middle. Sure I want to end it immediately if I can; who doesn't. But I still focus a lot of attention to after the fact...the middle. After step one, where the initial confrontation takes place, you are now “in it.” Once there, flinches or stops or any other catch phrase defenses are already passed and what you need now is to be a better fighter than your attacker. Now you’re in the middle and need to gain or maintain control. This will also happen when attacked by surprise. Sometimes you will be in the middle right from the word go. You might be on the floor or against a wall or in a doorway or what have you. This is why I don’t concern myself with flinches and things of this nature. I get startled…I’m human. It is experience and training that allows me to control that startle and continue into controlling the situation. As long as I don’t get startled and turn my back!!! Ok…then turn that into a spin, right? What I want is to be able to deal with what’s going on in the middle. After the initial attack or if my initial defense fails. I need to be able to fight. One of my most used phrases is that I just want to be “the wrong guy to fuck with.” I’ve known guys with no training that were like that. I have training…I want to be even better. With confidence and training comes control. With control comes the ability to deal with startles or flinching in a positive way without altering what is natural.

Take a knife defense as an example of a flinch going the wrong way. Someone is holding a knife and you are backed against a car or wall. You watch his face or eyes to be ready to defend if he moves. The face/eyes will tell all…I have heard this. Suddenly he shouts and moves his body but it was just a ploy. You jumped into action to block but being that it was only meant to startle you, you block nothing; he didn’t move the blade at all. His ploy worked and you are now bleeding all over your new shoes because as you moved he saw an opening! A flinch gone awry. Maybe you should watch the knife or the whole picture…just don’t watch the face.
So, like I said at the beginning, there may be more to consider here. Flinching from surprise and flinching because a rock is flying at you and fighting are diffeernt things. I for one don’t give it much thought. I lean more toward finding out how the body likes to work and then just working toward capitalizing on that. At the moment I am studying the movement of a baseball pitcher named Tim Lincecum who they say is uncanny. His pitching has been called an act of violence. He says he just figured out how the body works. I say it would make one hell of a punch!

To get startled and flinch are natural responses, I don’t fight it. I just learn not to let it cause me to stutter. In my experience, a real and dangerous situation is a frenzy of thought and motion and at times can also be moments of “no thought.” We train and we hope it all works in our favor. If you ask me I say that you have to train hard and then add about 100% on top of that. And with that I still say that in a real situation the best you can hope for is to make it to the crossroads where training meets luck.

Startle, flinch, whatever....just don't get scared and lose.

Tommy

Nick Hughes wrote:Here's another picture of the same scenario

Really?

Which way is the bat moving? It could easill be going across those people, rather than towards them - hence no raised arms?

Just a thought.

As for the original pic, along with the who would and who would not get punched ideas..... Again, all you see is a snap shot, a solitary position. Firstly I don't think that anyone is suggesting that any flinch position will be a guaranteed defence in any case and, secondly, those arms are on different places immediately before and after the photo was taken. You're presuming that the "punch" would land at the precise moment the photo is taken. I think your reasoning is faulty on this occasion.

"Really?

Which way is the bat moving? It could easill be going across those people, rather than towards them - hence no raised arms?

Just a thought.

As for the original pic, along with the who would and who would not get punched ideas..... Again, all you see is a snap shot, a solitary position. Firstly I don't think that anyone is suggesting that any flinch position will be a guaranteed defence in any case and, secondly, those arms are on different places immediately before and after the photo was taken. You're presuming that the "punch" would land at the precise moment the photo is taken. I think your reasoning is faulty on this occasion."


I thought much the same thing, with the addition that with pic 1 we don't know where the different folks are up to in their movement. Just starting, just finishing, halfway through etc.. Too much time arguing with the CPS I suppose.


Out of interest Nick, when surprised, say a fast moving object coming in at your head, what sort of "flinch" have you trained in to your system?

As a side question for Mick, at what point does training , occasionally with friends , in a garage become "playing" in your view? As I've said to you before , as most of my training takes this form I always think of myself as the hobbyist you occasionally describe.

Sean,

Point is that you don't actively market yourself as an expert instructor mate, and that you have credible operational experience to boot.

Nick - I'll be testing your typing flinch response in a little while mate, but as has been pointed out your dissection of the photos is more than a little flawed (as you well know!) due to them being still shots only, plus it is a bat when all is said and done, not a punch. Even based on a punching attack, many of the positions would work against haymakers - the people's choice - just fine, so stop being so subjective big fella!

Mick

Fair do's Mick. I wasn't taking it as a personal dig at me at all , far from it, just wondered where you felt the line between one and the other was.

Nick thanks for the reply.
Good topic this one, I haven't posted here a lot lately but this one has rekindled a bit of interest.

Only here for a second again...

gotta love it...

Everyone who preaches the flinch response wheels out that picture as evidence of such a thing...

When I use the same picture "oih, you can't do that, where is the bat going, at what point is the picture taken, it's subjective, where did it end up, etc etc"

Pack of heathens the lot of you


Nick

PS: I'll be back...

Durrrrr,

It might have something to do with the fact that people flinched when the bat was coming towards them, and didn't when it wasn't.

Durrrr......

Thank you Captain Obvious...

Nick

Nick,

That's a bit rich accusing anyone of cherry-picking their argument mate - you'll be accusing us of being big Australians next!

Question still stands - what would be your response if you were one of the individuals in the first photo?

Regarding the second one showing almost no response, I've seen another photo - with an unsuspecting guy getting hit by the bat - where everyone is as per the first almost identically, so the circumstances must have been the same to warrant this unlike photo number two - unless it's just the biggest coincidence in history to get such large groups of people all acting the same sitting together on 3 seperate occasions!

Truth is we'll never know unless we see video footage, but an educated guess would be that on two out of three photos the crowd identified imminent danger from a flying object, and acted accordingly, and on one out of three photos the same danger wasn't perceived so little action was taken.

Sticking your arms between the threat and your head isn't too bad a choice, for a bunch of untrained individuals - without being too pedantic about arm positions and the like. Fact is, if the mood took you to do some searching around you could find lots of stills of highly trained and experienced fighters with some truly atrocious, or seemingly so at least, arm and body positions in response to incoming blows - but that could be construed as being selective with the evidence, and you obviously wouldn't dream of doing such a thing would you mate?

In the following clip there are some shockingly bad responses to just semi-contact kicks and punches, performed part way in by guys in black gi's sparring, check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZUJiJYhj88 I dread to think what would happen if they tried that stuff in the ring with some Muay Thai fighters or the like...

Even your 'musuem list' of 1-30 responses to sudden stimuli - given that not all of the testing is especially relevant regarding some being audio triggers only - has many of the responses as being positive to perceived danger i.e. getting something expendable in the way, or trying to evade - these can certainly be worked with and most are highly visible in the above clip of highly trained individuals sparring, along with the occasional use of your favourite - number 25!

Watching pro-fighters in the ring or cage, it seems that when they are on the receiving end of all manner of blows, most seem to try and cover their heads in a manner not unlike seen in two out of three photos of untrained people at baseball matches who possibly think they are going to be hit by a flying bat - these are highly trained and seasoned fighters, true professionals with the best instruction available, dealing with random and full-power spontaneous assaults upon their persons, captured on film for all to see. If there was a better way I'm pretty certain they'd be doing it, not choosing to behave like a bunch of untrained baseball spectators.

Bottom line is that all animals do have an instinctive reflexive response to sudden threat stimuli - actually there are two, an initial general startle response followed by a longer defensive response more directed toward protection from a threat. As for being hard-wired, researchers have found that the second phase can be manipulated using drugs to either enhance or reduce the neuronal activity that affects sustained deliberate response, but the initial phase is left unaffected throughout.

Some instinctive responses are extremely positive and effective, not to mention efficient - why even attempt to replace them, especially if the replacement action simply achieves the same result? Definitely work hard on re-mapping negative instinctive actions, this goes without saying, but trained and instinctive are not mutually exclusive so long as function, not form, is the intention.

I'm certainly no 'instinctive' zealot, or 'flinch response' dictator, I don't wheel out photos of baseball accidents to prove uber-conclusively that this is the definitive 'shape' to make when attacked, regardless of if you want to or not - not at all, but these sort of photos do prove useful and confirm certain principles, so long as they are taken in context and treated in abstract.

Mick

I posted this before, I think it could be the study Mick mentioned above. Its relevant to this subject.

'New understanding of the machinery of flinching

The flinch is a critically important protective mechanism by which animals and humans instantly protect themselves against threats ranging from an attacking predator to an incoming golf ball. Researchers Michael Graziano and Dylan Cooke have shed new light on the neural machinery that controls flinching by dialing the response up or down using drugs.
Their studies concentrated on a region of the motor cortex they have dubbed the polysensory zone, which Graziano and other researchers had shown could be induced to trigger flinching by electrical stimulation.

However, Graziano and Cooke sought to test the hypothesis that the polysensory zone controls the natural behavioral flinch; motor cortex is usually not thought to control full, natural movements. To do this, they investigated how increasing or decreasing neuronal activity in the region affected the flinch response.

In their experiments with monkeys, the researchers targeted the region with drugs that either enhanced or reduced neuronal activity. They then recorded how the monkeys responded to a mild puff of air to the face.

The researchers found that the activating drugs enhanced the flinch response--which included a squint, a blink, lifting of the upper lip, flattening of the ears, and a protective arm and shoulder movement.
Flinching consists of two phases--an initial, general startle response, followed by a longer defensive response more directed toward protection from a threat. By measuring the electrical activity of the animals' eye muscles during the response, the researchers could follow it in greater detail. Significantly, they found that the initial startle response was unaffected by the drug, as were the nondefensive movements the animals made between trials. Only the sustained, directed phase of the flinch was affected.

Conversely, the researchers found that a drug that reduced neuronal activity in the polysensory zone selectively reduced the sustained, directed phase of the flinch.

The researchers' analysis indicated that the effects on the polysensory zone were partly due to alteration of the muscle response as well as to effects on the sensory response to the air puff.

The researchers concluded that their findings help reveal the role of the polysensory zone (PZ) as a "hotspot" that is relatively specialized for processing a particular set of stimuli--in this case those that represent a sudden approach of objects to the body.
"PZ may provide an example in the motor system of a relative hotspot for the ethologically important function of defense of the body surface, although PZ may of course have other sensory and motor functions not tested in the present experiment," they wrote.


###
Dylan F. Cooke and Michael S.A. Graziano: "Super-Flinchers and Nerves of Steel: Defensive Movements Altered by Chemical Manipulation of a Cortical Motor Area"

Publishing in Neuron, Volume 43, Issue 4, 19 August 2004, pages 585-593.

There's not really a nice way to say this. That ZDK clip was truly appalling.

Mick,

Not accusing anyone of cherry picking arguments...the point I made was that a lot of instructors (on Thompson's site and others) wheel out that photo as proof that people flinch when things are flung at them.

Wow, how illuminating...was there ever any doubt? My problem with the photo has always been, and will always be, that's it a group of (as far as we know) untrained people. I've always said I'd like to see a group of trained people in that situation and I bet the response would be different.

Wheeling out a photo like that makes as much sense to me (as a trainer) to wheeling out one of someone on fire running around screaming which is what untrained people do when alight and saying "Look, see, they're running round screaming so we should all train to do the same." How about someone not trained to swim...let's find clips of people drowning and use that as a method of justifying that we teach people to flail and sink because look, these people in the picture do.

My argument, and I stand behind it, is that trained responses are invariably better than untrained ones...

The fact that a highly trained individual can prevail against seemingly all comers isn't just down to his training - his untrained counterpart can have an equally impressive record. What is worth bearing out here is the issue of being 'untrained' because these guys certainly are not, in most people's perception of the word. Just because they haven't been through the usual martial arts route does not mean that they haven't diligently refined their particular methods of putting people away. Many times this 'self-taught/self realised' approach is equally as, if not more, potent than the 'properly' trained version. It's worth adding that by this I do not refer to the wannabee clowns that teach themselves from books/DVDs/Youtube and play in their garages with impressionable mates, I am instead referring to the seasoned fighters who put people away on a much too regular basis - trained and untrained.

As for the ascendency and superiority of the trained martial artist - well I have put plenty of them down over the years mate, and a great many were not as tough as the various scumbags I've come up against - often being much easier marks due to their training, and some I've beaten simply by virtue of overwhelming violence and physicality.

...You have confirmed as much in the above quote - and I'm glad you saved me from pointing out that the so called "untrained" individuals are trained indeed just not by the likes of us. Whether it's by virtue of growing up in a rough part of town and having to fight to survive, ending up in the penal system and learning for the same reason or fighting for kicks they are indeed trained/schooled.

I'll still stack my training up against theirs anyday.

To begin with how realistic is it for my corporate client who was mugged a few weeks ago (and who beat the street thugs) to learn to defend himself their way? Should he commit a crime and go to prison to learn by trial and error how to defend himself? Should he sell his million dollar home and go live in the 'hood' for a few years to achieve his self taught/self realized form of fighting?

My clients invariably are all from the upper socio economic strata who've discovered that their defense is down to them and not the police who are trained to deal with crime AFTER the fact. The last fight they had was in kindergarten in the sand pit wrestling over a Tonka truck but they know they have to learn what to do. What's their best chance, realistically?
Rely on their instincts, live in the ghetto, or get some training with people like you and me?

As for the debate re flinching/not flinching etc...as previously mentioned, I leave all that stuff for the boffins. I know what I do - and to answer your question of specifically it's typically one hand up in front of my face and one hand back to punch with which has been the form for thousands of years in many systems, including those guys holding shields and swords whether they were spartans, zulus, huns, chinese, Greeks, Romans, Africans et al.

If it is truly involuntary, as some claim, then by its very nature there isn't anyway to train it out of us...if, on the other hand, it is trainable then I'd argue come up with a better postion than almost all the natural versions. I've seen

One final point I'd come up with...I've never claimed the superiority of the trained martial artist...as there are, as you and I both know, martial artists and martial artists. A properly trained martial artist on the other hand is a different kettle of fish...I, and my brothers in arms in Oz were always the ones hired to sort out the thugs...not the other way round.

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote: Wheeling out a photo like that makes as much sense to me (as a trainer) to wheeling out one of someone on fire running around screaming which is what untrained people do when alight and saying "Look, see, they're running round screaming so we should all train to do the same." How about someone not trained to swim...let's find clips of people drowning and use that as a method of justifying that we teach people to flail and sink because look, these people in the picture do.

Nick,

This is an interesting point and one I'd be interested in finding out more about. I don't have the science behind it and would be interested to see if there is a difference here from someone in this field of research.

I am wondering if there is a difference between flinching, panicking and a reflexive action. People drowning tend to flap around which could be said to be swimming with bad technique. Slow it down, more control, cup there hands and they'd be treading water. Is that a natural response? Maybe ....or maybe they are flapping because they are panicking and reverting to visual stimulus trying a last ditch (unconscious) effort to mimic what they have seen of people swimming.

Someone on fire is another interesting thought. Is that a reflexive action? Fight or flight? We do know that, that can be retrained to teach people to stop drop and roll. Are these actions all related, all the same or all different? That is something for the people who study these fields. Sometimes noting these things shows that we can fool ourselves by taking examples from unrelated things and applying them to others. There may be a fine line between noting human reaction and noting body movement. Maybe blocking something flying at your head is reacted to a certain way because it is dealing with that threat and that alone. Reacting to a punch may be different because your brain perceives more to come and possibly getting killed, now you need a plan. Maybe the flinch is mixed with fear and panic. Maybe it is totally different than being on fire or drowning. I really don't have the answers but one thing I see is that each threat has a different response. If you're on fire you run....but you don't try to run when you're drowning!

Anyway, I would tend to think that we need to apply like actions. In other words, if you want to test or adapt a flinch you need to see how people flinch from a punch or kick coming at them. If you want to see a different flinch then swing a lead pipe at their head. Stab at them with a knife and they may push out their hands and recoil their body.

This is something I am curious about only out of interest, I won't be trying to connect any of it to fighting anytime soon.

Tommy

Some natural responses are harmful, like curling into a ball in the face of an assault, hoping it will go away. And some are worth refining to make them even more useful, like placing your arms in front of your head when a big hard object is about to bang you in the bonce.

So disproving the validity of one natural response does nothing to disprove the validity of refining a useful one.

Tommy_P wrote:I am wondering if there is a difference between flinching, panicking and a reflexive action. People drowning tend to flap around which could be said to be swimming with bad technique. Slow it down, more control, cup there hands and they'd be treading water. Is that a natural response? Maybe ....or maybe they are flapping because they are panicking and reverting to visual stimulus trying a last ditch (unconscious) effort to mimic what they have seen of people swimming.

For what's it worth, I have some first-hand experience with drowning that might, or might not, be useful for answering your questions.
First, a lesson from me: if you can't swim, and you only have a friend with you that promises "I'm gonna teach you and it's gonna be easy", don't go in the almost empty pool with them in the absence of the "poolwatch". I remember someone said "It will be easy" is the catchphrase for there is likely to be serious trouble .
Second, if you do, don't pick a pool that is about 3 times or more your own height. Not even if it's the closest ot your home!
Third, untill you are sure you can keep afloat, don't go for the center of the pool. Even if your friend really thinks it's time you try this...

Now, I remember going down, but I wasn't really scared. Maybe I'm hard-wired differently, or I was going through a hard time and didn't see my onw death as much of a loss, or I just didn't lost hope until the last moment-I don't know. It looks to me I'm perfectly normal in how my brain is wired. Other people seem weird at times, though .
So let's assume I have just been stupid enough not to be scared .
But anyway, I wasn't scared, so write off the panic. I wasn't panicked-and I've been panicked enough times to know the difference.
Yes, I was trying to swim, as I have been told to do, and I've seen other people doing-it just wasn't working. I tried to jump up, too, in order to get some air...yeah, remember the part about "3 or more times your own height"? Didn't work out, either. I then tried the "running answer", trying to walk on the floor to the wall of the pool. It just was (still is, I guess) too damn big, so I couldn't probably reach it in time. Water tends to slow your movement.
Well, a more experienced swimmer got me out of it (litterally), so I'm typing this right now, after staying underwater for a minute or so. Sadly enough, noone had bothered to check the time, at least to know just how long I have been there. But I can attest I didn't have much time left.
So, at least for swimming, I'll take a course over my own "instinctive reaction", any day of the week.

As I said, swimming is not fighting and I am not by any means a big enough sample of the population to base any conclusions on my case, but at least, the account is from first-hand experience.

Brian S wrote:Some natural responses are harmful, like curling into a ball in the face of an assault, hoping it will go away. And some are worth refining to make them even more useful, like placing your arms in front of your head when a big hard object is about to bang you in the bonce.

So disproving the validity of one natural response does nothing to disprove the validity of refining a useful one.

Yes, thus my alluding to specificity. Or at least my uncertainty due to lack of scientific backing/data on my part.


Cuddly Werewolf

Every answer leads to a new question.
Which is why I leave that shit alone and improve what I do know.
Better ways of using my body rather than screwing around with hardwired responses or reflexes or whatever. I can get stronger but that doesn't mean I can punch harder. How can I better use my strength to be able to punch harder.....body mechanics and such are (for me) better suited to fighting.

Tommy

Tommy_P
I just told my story, because you mentioned drowning, and I am able to recall what one feels like while drowning. The conclusions, if you draw any conclusions from it, are up to you. I'm not in either camp, as I don't have enough experience to back up or reject either theory.
And if you don't find it useful, well, I at least tried telling it in an entertaining manner .
Asen