Several readers (thanks to all) have called my attention to two pieces about Sam Harris (free online) in the new Atlantic: an interview “What martial arts have to do with atheism,” and an article (another about Sam’s penchant for martial arts), ‘The atheist who strangled me“. The interviewer and the writer are Graeme Wood.
I knew that Sam was not only an advocate of gun ownership, but a practitioner of martial arts, but I didn’t know how avid he was about the latter. He’s apparently a diligent student—training three times a week—of Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ), a lethal form of hand-to-hand combat that you can see on YouTube, and whose aim is to strangle the opponent or break his limbs.
I had thought that Sam’s motivation for owning guns and studying jiu jitsu was to protect himself in light of the many death threats his gotten after publishing two books attacking religion, but there’s also another motivation that I found interesting. This quote ends the “strangled” article:
A week later, Harris tutored me in his other passion: meditation. The introduction left me with an even greater sense of spiritual discomfort than the ass-kicking. And after 20 minutes of struggling to banish the voices in my head and clear my mind, I felt just as winded as I had at the Gracie Academy. The experience did, however, offer some insight into why Harris might crave a daily routine of silent reflection. He has, after all, chosen a life of wandering the Earth getting in unwinnable arguments with unyielding people. Perhaps this leaves him with an unusual need for peace, quiet, and answers.
“The sort of satisfaction one hopes to achieve in intellectual debate is always elusive,” said Harris, referring to his public disputations with various professional Christian apologists. “I’ve had debates where it’s absolutely clear to me that my opponent has to tap out,” he told me. [JAC: “Tapping out” refers to practice bouts of BJJ in which you signal your helplessness to the opponent by tapping his body.] “They are wrong—just as demonstrably as you’re wrong when you’re being choked to death in a triangle choke.” (Which raises the possibility that, however calm and well-spoken Harris appears onstage with, say, Rick Warren, he may be silently imagining strangling the pastor into unconsciousness.) “It’s like they’ve turned into a zombie,” he continued. “You rarely get the satisfaction in intellectual life where the person who is wrong has to acknowledge and grow from the experience of having been self-deceived for so long.”
That’s true, but you do get the satisfaction of receiving letters—and Sam has gotten many—showing that your public debates have converted onlookers to your point of view.
If you want to see what BJJ looks like, here’s an example. According to Sam, an expert in BJJ can “put you to sleep” in 6 to 10 seconds once he gets his hand on your neck:
Yes, I have often made the joke that I’d never want to startle Sam Harris by rushing up to him in a crowd because he practices marital arts. 🙂
The more I learn about Sam Harris and his work (although I’ve never read his books)I come to the idea that he is a Vulcan or wishes to be Vulcan.
Please read his books: They are superb.
He is really good at debating religious nuts but that’s kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. When it comes to his own gun fetish he can’t see the irrationality of it and claims that people who argue their points very well against him (Sean Faircloth) for one, haven’t thought enough about guns…
My opinion of him went further down hill when he actually tried to pretend he was not islamophobic (whether that’s a bad thing anyway is another discussion). If anything in his books and speeches is clear, is that he does not think very highly of the religion and culture of islam, why he somehow thinks the term does not apply to him is beyond comprehension.
It is not a term that applies to his criticism of Islam. He isn’t phobic. He is justifiably afraid of the sanction to violence Islam endorses. He does a very close reading of the Koran and Hadith to make his argument.
Now we have a western Yukio Mishima?? I find the fascination with guns and “lethal martial arts forms” a bit disturbing, moreover on “intellectuals”. So much for a compassionate way to mitigate this world of better angels.
Being versed in gun safety and martial arts are not necessarily antithetical to compassion. I personally do not own a gun, nor am I trained in the martial arts, but the gun owners I know who are trained in safety and my friends who study martial arts are among the least confrontational people I know. As Harris said in the interview, “One of my teachers, Mark Mikita, specializes in knife fighting, mostly derived from the Filipino martial arts, and one of his teachers told him: ‘If you train with me for ten years, and someone pulls a knife on you, and you just turn and run, then your training has been successful.'”
I suspect that compassion is an independent variable.
I own a gun, and I train in the martial arts. I like a good argument now and then, but that’s about as confrontational as I like to get.
A decade or more ago, the best martial arts teacher I’ve ever had said–many, many times–that if you get into a street fight, you have failed at the most basic level. This is a concept that takes a long time to master, and is much more complicated than it seems, but martial arts at their most primitive (and successful) are about avoiding conflict.
That may be true at for some, but not all. Some martial arts are very specifically focused on quickly incapacitating or killing your opponent with as much violence as possible. For example those styles that are used by various military forces to train their people, particularly in specialized elite units, in hand to hand combat.
In that martial arts are, at the most basic level, about surviving and avoiding harm, the best way to do that in general is of course, as you pointed out, to avoid conflict. And I do think that is a very good attitude for the typical martial arts practitioner to have.
I think you have to make a clear distinction between “martial arts” and combat/reality based fighting systems (and it’s only been fairly recently that people did any useful thinking about making a distinction, with the advent of UFC and BJJ, and to a lesser extent Krav Maga.)
Even in reality based combat, however, the best strategy is to run, even if running is the antithesis of a war’s goals 🙂
There is a BIG distinction between martial arts and combat fighting styles. The US Army LINE system and the Marines MCMAP emphasize lethal moves and condition the participant against his or her reluctance to use lethal force. Some forms of Russian Sambo and Systema are the same, as are the types of Savate used by the French military and police.
Real combat techniques almost always beat sport fighters. Since Harris mentioned the chokes, I am sure he has been trained in those aspects of BJJ that are supposedly derived from how dismounted and unarmed Samurai fought each other.
Most fights between animals are stylized and reduce harm. Humans are no different. Lose the inhibitions and you have a great advantage.
Having been robbed at knifepoint, attacked with a razor, held at gunpoint, and stabbed by my own father while in a fit of iatrogenic dementia, I find a disciplined interest in martial arts a very commendable trait in an intellectual. If nothing else, it helps keep one’s own homicidal reflexes at bay. (I’m glad I didn’t have a Glock or a SIG Sauer when attacked: I’d have used them.) There is a time for compassion, there is a time for survival; choose wisely.
The present interview with Sam Harris is the most fascinating I’ve read yet, and not for the lack of competition.
I’ve found Sam’s perspectives on violence very helpful and also terrifying because they reinforce what I already thought. Check out: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence
+ multiples
I very much enjoy Sam’s writings and perspective. Here is a FAQ on violence with Sam that helps explain his position on it further. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence
It makes sense.
We may wish for peace on earth, but that is not everyone’s wish. There is indeed a time for compassion, and a time for survival. Sometimes turning the other cheek hurts more than helps, and being a doormat certainly won’t stop violence, nor bring compassion to the victims.
It was this article that actually swayed me to Sam’s side of the argument….then I wondered, “Is Sam Harris just really persuasive?” I still wonder…. 🙂 Also, the example he gives of those thugs in England again scares the crap out of me. He did this in Free Will – scared the crap out of me with violent stories. I actually wrote in a review of the book, “Sam Harris has to stop scaring the crap out of me”.
I find the fascination with guns and “lethal martial arts forms” a bit disturbing, moreover on “intellectuals”. So much for a compassionate way to mitigate this world of better angels.
I don’t think Sam Harris is “fascinated” with guns. He believes that guns can be an important means of self-defense. Ditto for martial arts. He’s written a couple of essays explaining his thinking on these subjects, and his thinking on violence more broadly. I don’t know why you think anything he’s written on these issues is inconsistent with compassion.
Please read Sam’s articles:
The truth about violence
The riddle of the gun
FAQ on violence
Islamophobia and other libels
Very easy to find on his blog:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/
Sam is one of the very few people making sense on these subjects.
I’m skeptical of martial arts in general. Whenever I’ve seen a fight where trained and untrained people are involved, the match degenerates into whoever can punch the other faster and strongest. Usually on the crotch.
The illusion of martial arts can probably be maintained because trained contenders have agreed to the rules beforehand.
However, it is a great way to exercise and burn calories and that likely sufficient to give you an edge.
Sam well understands the drawbacks of “martial arts in general,” as he makes clear in the interview.
Sam has addressed this point. For instance, he acknowledges that even an expert is helpless against multiple attackers or an attacker armed with a lethal weapon.
One thing about BJJ though is the vulnerability of being on the ground all the time, and the fact that many terrains or locations may not be suitable for ground fighting.
I have a buddy who was a Marine, and he said that they were taught to 1) stay on their feet at all times and 2) to try to incapacitate their opponent with very quick strikes to vulnerable areas. These real life fights were not supposed to last more than a few seconds.
He also said that they emphasized the importance of being physically strong, as great disparities in strength are difficult to overcome in no-holds-barred fighting, even if you have superior technique.
Harris addressed these criticisms as well if not obliquely. He initially criticized BJJ because going to the ground is generally a bad idea in a fight. He reversed his opinion about BJJ after learning more because it is one of the few Martial arts that avoids self-delusion because it can be practiced at near full strength (as opposed to say bare fist fighting). But he also referred after his self defense essay to Rory Miller and Geoff Thompson. Miller trains Marines in military-style combat and is badass. Thompson was a bouncer and knows and teaches real world self-protection (the “fence”) and how to knock someone out to end a fight instantly. Both teach conflict avoidance and awareness as most important. Harris is definitely becoming a Jedi Master.
depends on the flavour of martial art really and how it is taught.
A old instructor of mine always recommended either western boxing or thai boxing as the ideal self defence art.
Not so much for the direct techniques but instead for the high level of cardio which was a by product so you can run away quicker.
Western and Thai boxing works because the average training experience is usually so much more rigorous compared to the average McDojo. Youtube has tons of examples of Karate or Tae Kwon Do artists getting beaten severely in matches with Thai boxers. However, most of the Thai boxers look extremely fit and strong, while many of the Karate or TKD artists appear to be a bit doughy and average. And unlike the Thai boxers, they also didn’t seem accustomed to getting hit hard.
I wonder if the Karate and TKD practitioners would fare better if they trained harder, with more contact, and developed a better quality athlete.
Karate and similar MAs have always seemed to me to have about as much “art” content to them as actual real life effectiveness. Lots and lots of different techniques, often fairly complex. MAs like Muay Thai, Krav Maga and similar are more streamlined, simpler and more direct technique wise. They seem more focused on how to quickly dismantle someone in a real life no holds barred confrontation, rather than counting coup, scoring points or looking good.
There are lots of poor martial arts trainers and training programs, and lots of people that train in martial arts have the wrong attitude. But, for a person with a decent grasp of the realities, martial arts training will never be anything but an asset in any physical confrontation.
I’m in agreement with all your comments. But I do want to point out that bad martial arts and bad martial arts teachers are, well, bad, and there’s a tremendous proliferation now of both. It’s bad for the sport, and dangerous for the individuals.
Could not agree more. Nicely said.
Sam Harris’ work has done a LOT to disabuse me of my delusions. He’s one of my intellectual heroes. Thanks for sharing, Jerry !
And I can kill someone in seconds with a knife, or sitting in my car every day. Its really easy. Anyone can do it. The fascination with lethal martial arts is somewhere between childish and very revealing.
Martial Arts is a discipline requiring focus, application, dedication, diligence, practice and some athletic skill, among other things. I’ve been practicing for years, and I’m still no good at it. I don’t think this reveals anything about me particularly.
But childish? That’s just rude.
“And I can kill someone in seconds with a knife, or sitting in my car every day.”
So can I. So can a small child with a handgun. Killing people is not a particularly hard thing to do. Not harming people, such as the practice partners in your dojo, is a lot more work.
The reality is that ongoing martial arts practice gives you the most direct benefits in terms of self-defense. There is no “fascination” with “lethal” martial arts, only the acknowledgment that this is a dangerous world.
If that is an euphemism for deadly strangulation it isn’t a good one, and if it trying to be a description of going for a non-lethal attempt it isn’t a good one either. I dunno about the actual statistics, but I keep hearing “don’t try this at home”.
I would assume it goes like the old joke about coitus interruptus, what you call a pair trying it is “father and mother”, here it would be “murder and murdered”.
“murderer“. Moar coffee…
It’s not an euphemism. It’s a well know fact to every mma fan. A rear naked choke puts anybody to sleep in a few seconds.
“It’s a well known fact to every MMA fan. A rear naked choke puts anybody to sleep in a few seconds.” Well…yes, but so what?
Allowing yourself to be willingly choked out, for your own knowledge, is quite different from learning how to apply a choke effectively (and how to fight one) in situations where your opponent is resisting. And there are tactics that can be used to lessen the effects of a choke while you are trying to get out of it. I’ve had people give up perfect chokes on me, just because I wasn’t reacting to it as quickly as they thought I *should.* Individual motivation is key.
Being strangled to the point of losing consciousness is considerably less dangerous than being beaten unconscious. With the caveat, “as long as you don’t damage the artery.”
Still dangerous of course, since it depends on the people involved not being too stupid. As in let go when the person loses consciousness, or when asked / signaled too.
you should be able to try it yourself. just pinch your carotid arteries on both sides of your neck and count to 10. don’t worry, you’ll wake up because as soon as you become unconscious your grip will automatically release. at least in theory.
How effective is the Crane Kick against a rear naked choke?
Crane Kick trumps everything. Even Sweeping The Leg.
Wax on. Wax off. What’s the difference?
Once wax is on, wax off, is very difficult.
Not if you wax in the shade and don’t put it on too thick. I don’t know if this fits into a metaphor but I said it for the smartassness of it.
Ironically, something akin to the Karate Kid’s Crane Kick has been used to successfully KO opponents in the UFC (e.g. by Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida). After which many fighters have started throwing high front kicks, once thought to be one of the more useless karate techniques.
Vaal
It is not that kicks like the “Crane” kick, or the spinning back kick are useless. But they are not encouraged because a reasonably well trained / experienced opponent can easily avoid the kick. Or worse, they can use the opportunity to hurt you because you have to expose yourself to deliver such moves. To have a reasonable chance of success you have to set it up first by putting your opponent into a position where they can’t take advantage of how you are about to expose yourself.
Kicks like that are high risk, high reward if successful. Like a sacrifice throw in judo or jiu jitsu . You don’t try it unless conditions are just right because otherwise you are putting yourself at your opponents mercy.
Yes. It’s another tool.
Know when to use it and when to leave it in the box.
By the way, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is what got the current sport of mixed martial arts (such as the UFC) going in the first place.
The Gracie family in Brazil developed a variation of jiu-jitsu, and one of the sons, Royce, did some demonstrations where he took on top fighters of other martial arts forms (and won quickly and decisively). The guy who started the UFC saw these demonstrations and started a contest in the US with the idea that Royce would beat the best in the other sports like karate, boxing, muay thai, tae kwon do, sumo, etc. And Royce Gracie won three out of the first four UFC competitions (the one he didn’t win he had to withdraw because a previous fight that he had won left him damaged).
In current MMA, you no longer have a straight BJJ artist going up against a straight karate expert, because everyone cross-trains in the other disciplines. But still BJJ is the most valuable skill in the cage.
Forget BJJ, I’ve always found Sam can put me to sleep in 6-8 seconds just by speaking.
+1
I’ve canceled my subscription to Sam’s blog, as I no longer feel he has anything of importance to impart.
Thank you for your comment, but I disagree.
Agree with Jerry.
I find Sam to be interesting on any subject, whether I agree with him or not.
Vaal
+ in the strongest terms
+ definitely!
Wow, that leaves me speechless.
On one subject alone (guns in the US) he’s probably the ONLY person I’ve heard making useful contributions.
Have you seen this http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/why_does_anyone_take_sam_harris_seriously/
Sam doesn’t make sense on guns, among other topics.
Yes, I’ve seen it. It’s one of the worst articles I can remember reading, in terms of misrepresenting the subject.
A better question would be, why does anyone take Ian Murphy seriously?
How you could think that piece qualifies as a serious critique of Sam, I have no idea.
Sam’s rules about violence start here:
1. Avoid it. Don’t go to dangerous places
2. Run away. Do whatever you can to get away from a violent situation
3. If you are left no option to get away, attack fast and hard as you can (using as much surprise as you can) with the sole purpose of allowing yourself to ESCAPE
Much of his gun articles deal with how to AVOID using them.
I would VERY MUCH like to hear what you find fault with these ideas.
I’ve never heard anyone else state these things as clearly and sensibly.
You say this with confidence not knowing what books or subjects he’ll tackle in the future. I honestly can’t think of a writer/philosopher who has taken on the breadth of subjects that Harris has and with incredible new insights to bring: religion, the problem with moderate religion, torture, terrorism, collateral damage, morality, ethics, eudaimonia, humanism, meditation, free will, lying, science generally and neuroscience specifically including groundbreaking studies of belief using fMRI, accomodationism, violence, self-defense, guns, politics, etc. And he’s only 46 and in the company of elder statesmen such as Dawkins and Dennett. You might want to credit Harris with starting the New Atheist movement since the End of Faith was the FIRST book (how many publishers turned it down?) that really started a public conversation about atheism that was unapologetic and firm.
Those were great interviews, as usual for Sam.
I did various martial arts including BJJ for many years, so it’s been great to see one of my intellectual heroes, Sam Harris, writing on the subject. He captures the experience so well. (It was fun learning BJJ even before the UFC began. I was the only guy in the room saying “see that skinny guy, Royce Gracie? He’s going to beat everyone.” I won some money on bets that night).
Where once people imagined a Martial Arts Master to be able to easily dispose of muggers and attacks, over time a greater realism of attitude became the norm, especially since the UFC. But that has also gone so far as to make many think that martial arts training
is a poor guarantee against the dreaded, mysterious “street fighters” and muggers who
“know how to fight for keeps.”
However, while MA training is obviously no guarantee in a street scenario, there are a great many examples of just what someone is getting into if he attacks a highly trained fighter. I remember one example of a famous UFC fighter being stabbed during a mob attack in a store.
Witnesses said he was actually stabbed in the back while fighting, turned around, saw who did it and proceeded to take out the next 6 guys in a row (afterwards, he needed to go to the hospital of course).
More recently well known BJJ bad-ass Renzo Gracie became aware he was being stalked and set up for a mugging on a New York street. He took care of both guys WHILE tweeting about it, pictures and all.
For my part, beyond the sportive and kinesthetic appeal of martial arts, I don’t like the idea of a real fight whatsoever. In all likelihood I get hurt, or I hurt the other guy, or we both get hurt. None of those outcomes appeal to me at all.
Vaal
Reminds me of a martial arts homily about levels of achievement in the art:
1) We fight, and I don’t get hurt.
2) We fight, I don’t get hurt, and you don’t either.
3) We don’t fight.
Or Sam’s heirarchy:
1. Avoid situation completely*
2. Run away
3. Attack only to get away
* I love how he puts this: “If you visit dangerous neighborhoods at night, or hike alone and unarmed on trails near a big city, or frequent places where drunken young men gather, you are running some obvious risks.”
Yeah, absolutely.
In my travels around the world, I’ve met many tales of woe. In every single case the root cause was doing something very stupid.
“Yeah, we went down to that “rough” bar at 3 am. Every one said that’s where the action was.” Yep, they found the action alright!
“Yeah, they stole my passport and air ticket. I walked through that crowded bus with my belly pack open, didn’t take the time to close it.”
Etc., etc.
Maintain situational awareness at all times. Don’t go to dangerous places. Run if you have to. One of my criteria for traveling to “rough” destinations is: Can you run? (You may need to!)
Way to miss the point!
Indeed, that one really stuck out to me too.
I always get a slight hint of Buddhist Abhidhamma philosophy reading Sam Harris’s prose, though I could be reaching a bit.
Harris writes that knifes are dangerous, scary, icky things, used by “Somebody who gets out of 10 years in a maximum-security prison has basically gone to graduate school for shanking people.”
In his examples, it’s always the guy with a knife. Guns being used against you don’t seem to concern him much.
The reality is, someone with a GUN can shoot you multiple times, quickly, leaving many holes, some larger than others. (Depending on the bullet-of-choice.) Bullets can also easily penetrate your skull, much harder with a knife. Bullets often travel further than intended, injuring the bystanders. (Bullets have been known to travel more than a mile, not knives.)
By not acknowledging that guns are far more lethal than other weapons because they kill at a distance, Harris puts himself squarely in-line with NRA zealots who simply refuse to talk about gun violence.
Sam refuses to talk about gun violence?
Haven’t you seen the two recent articles he’s written on his blog that have caused a firestorm?
Go read his “The Riddle Of The Gun” and “FAQ On Violence” pieces. I’m not on Sam’s side with this issue, but he sure hasn’t shied away from it.
Vaal
SA Gould,
Your claim that Sam hasn’t addressed attacks using guns demonstrates that you haven’t even read his essays on guns and violence. And yet you feel justified in characterizing him as a “zealot.”
It never ceases to amaze me how often Harris’s critics (and Dawkins’s, for that matter) have never even bothered to read the man’s actual writing.
Was going on the pieces of his I had read. Will find/read suggested articles. But saying he sometimes writes like the worst of the NRA doesn’t mean I am calling him a zealot (fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of …ideals), because he clearly isn’t. Which is why I don’t like to see him talk like *they* do. He will survive this criticism.
sub
Most people, at least most public figures, have opinions that follow well defined ideologies (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc). One can never tell whether such people have thought deeply about or researched any given issues, or if they just associate with an ideology and get information from sources that match that ideology and then parrot those ideas and arguments. Therefore I find people, like Sam Harris, who defy being categorized into a simple box to be more credible, interesting, worth listening to, etc, than most other people.