The Psychology of Bluffing In Self-Defense
Self-defense instructors often encourage students to interrupt or discourage victimization by “pretending to be tough.”  Tiny, out-of-shape women, for example, are advised to stand tall, take an aggressive stance, sneer and blurt out insults and vulgarities in an attempt to intimidate a larger, stronger predator into backing off.
It makes sense on the surface. “The Law Of The Jungle,” states that predators target their prey on the basis of their perception of their willingness or ability to fight back. They are in search of the passive, weak and meak. So, in theory, the “tougher” you come across the less likely a criminal will follow through on his attempts to victimize you.
In my self-defense program this is called “Defiance,” and it’s one of five response options available to you in a confrontation. And SOMETIMES it IS the fight thing to do. Projecting the image of a tough gal or tough guy CAN send a bully, mugger or rapist searching for a easier target.
But should you ALWAYS do the defiance thing? Is it really that simple? Do you think advice like this has the potential to backfire?
In reality people who “pretend to be tough” have to consider two factors of success:
1. Will my”bluff” be convincing?
2. What will I do if the my bluff only makes matters worse?
People who are confused or doubtful about their response options, no matter how convincingly they attempt to come across, will not project the signals that they need to discourage aggressive behavior. Just like you can’t fake strength or endurance, it is also very difficult to fake the “non-victim” behaviors and body language that will send a potential assailant looking for someone else.
When you know EXACTLY what your response options are and you are confident in your ability to carry them out, you will project very different “signals” to the nutballs, retards and shitheads that get off on victimizing people. The knowledge and experience you gain through the active study and ongoing practice of self-defense will have a significant impact on your “circle of influence” and your ability to defuse a volatile situation.
Bottom line?… Defiance and de-escalation skills are not about bullshitting, bluffing or pretending. They are skills to be learned. They are enhanced only by a “legitimate” knowledge of your options and your ability to carry them out.Â
Solution? Keep studying the dynamics of self-defense and if you’re not already… get started on an intelligent, on-going combative training program.
There, I’ve said my piece… I feel better now. 
Ian said
am August 16 2007 @ 11:32 pm
years ago I was a student of an eclectic kung fu program. we would share in the duties of teaching the more junior students especially the women who would come to the self defense mini workshops. these were money generating weekenders to suppliment the school. at the completion of the course some of us would be asked to barge in unannounced dressed in street clothes and being loud and obnoxtious. we would purposely rough up the women and scare them to help them realize that some things are simply beyond their physical power. this may sound counter productive from a business point of view, however, the women needed to know that their best defense was to make wise decisions as to when and where they chose to be. no amount of training will prevent a tiny woman from being raped or worse should she choose to run in the park after dark alone. one or two juiced up punks on drugs or adrenalene determined to have their way are beyond a woman’s and even most men’s capacity or capability. even police carry guns, sticks and pepper spray.
Randy said
am August 17 2007 @ 8:29 am
You’ve raised some interesting points Ian, thanks. You are correct that the emphasis of self-defense should be on common sense and avoidance.
However, I disagree with your comment that “no amount of training will prevent a tiny woman from being raped or worse.”
The comment implies “helplessness” and people ALWAYS have control and influence if they select the right response option and execute it with full commitment.
Attackers are human beings with soft spots and vulnerabilities, and “tiny people” CAN neutralize, injure and escape from larger, stronger attackers if they are properly trained and knowledgable about the realities of self-defense.
Paul said
am August 19 2007 @ 9:50 am
Interesting. I recall a young lady, with a few weeks training asking to be taught how to defend a choke. Long story short.. she wanted it to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. While I was often highly (but silently) critical of the “realism” of what we were being taught, the 2 instructors were realistic enough to not give her false hope, and simply offered to go over and “talk” to the boyfriend - right away. She didn’t want them to intervene, and quit the class shortly thereafter.
Don Odom said
am August 19 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Randy,
Your ideas about responses and being confident in them are right on. As an instructor myself, I tell my students that bluffing is an option, but can backfire. I let them know this so they will be prepared in case it does. The women in my class appreciate this as it can save their life! But you are also right in if they are taught how to defend themselves, what targets are best in a ‘crunch’, and what options they have, they can win an incounter.
I believe this to be true and have my students practice all kinds of encounters including multiple attackers and it proves to them what works, what options to use and also what works only sometimes; but most of all, escape at the first chance you get. Funny thing is the women in my class are more violent than the men when it comes to defending themselves. I wonder if other instructors see this also?
jaime said
am August 19 2007 @ 8:47 pm
about the soft spot you’re right! why not step in close enough to his center line or beyond. and hit him as hard as you can to the throat,temple,nuts ect.