Stressed, shocked and jumpy

[Spartacus Maximus]

Going by what the person concerned was willing to share, the threats were serious, and in one experience there was a weapon(neither a gun or a knife). The worst thing for him seems to be the anxiety/stress immediately after it ended and anticipating having to do it again.

Rationally and logically they know the incidents are over and that they happened years ago in a different place far away. Yet the feeling that somehow the attackers might come back or that another similar situation will happen has stayed on all this time.

So far they haven’t really realized or accepted that being constantly on guard and subconsciously expecting attacks can freak people out. Finding a tactful way to get through to them might be a challenge. All that close friends have been able to do is listening.

[singularity6]

I teach math. Half of my students are terrified of getting the wrong answer on a homework assignment or an exam. In the end, they frequently opt into not trying, or simply accepting the "fact" that they're "not good at math" and fail. A number of them have documentation that says they have test anxiety, and they need accommodations when taking exams.

This isn't life-or-death, and they get plenty of training in my classes (or other math classes.)

How would we really expect people to act in a life-or-death situation?

[Spartacus Maximus]

One thing that should be worthy of considering is that the psychological state caused by experiencing violence is not necessarily one where one’s life is at stake. There are also situations where those involved in defending themselves only realize how seriously they were threatened until after the fact.

[JR 137]

I teach math. Half of my students are terrified of getting the wrong answer on a homework assignment or an exam. In the end, they frequently opt into not trying, or simply accepting the "fact" that they're "not good at math" and fail. A number of them have documentation that says they have test anxiety, and they need accommodations when taking exams.

This isn't life-or-death, and they get plenty of training in my classes (or other math classes.)

How would we really expect people to act in a life-or-death situation?

One could look at it another way too...

The people with (I guess severe) test anxiety didn’t go to college in previous generations, so it wasn’t seen rather than it didn’t exist. Same thing as your “I’m not good at math” example, only it was “I’m/you’re not college material” back then.

The more we accommodate people’s needs, the more stuff comes out of the woodwork. There’s always been the strong and the weak, brave and scared, motivated and lazy, and so on. The only new thing is we’re more accepting of the second group in each of those examples, give them a better chance, and we’re more accepting of them. Good or bad, correct or incorrect, that’s the way I see it. Just my opinion.

[singularity6]

I hear ya, JR.

The anxiety people have these days is probably an evolutionary remnant of what our ancestors had. Being always-alert and always-anxious probably kept early humans alive.

Technology and society have made us much safer from the wild and the elements... However, these things have given us other things to be anxious about. The primal fight-or-flight response helped when faced with other wild beasts (or angry people...) Now, it gets engaged when we sit down to take a biology exam, or stare at a blank sheet of paper or computer screen when writing a paper.

[LLLEARNER]

PTSDs are real, are frequently misunderstood by the public, and are not only relevant to combat vets.

Most people seem to talk about self defense scenarios as if they were born ready and super-heroic. "Oh, if I was in that situation I would ______________!"

The truth of the matter is that most (being the general population) have never really faced a truly life-or-death situation. You won't know how you'll react until you're in one. Hopefully, any martial arts training that any of us has received will kick in. But even if training does kick in, it's not always appropriate. Healthcare professionals, retail workers, and even law enforcement officers all have guidelines on what's reasonable force, and what isn't. Crossing those lines can jeopardize your future!

We just received active-shooter training at my school yesterday. The whole thing has me "stressed, shocked and jumpy."

Yes, organizations have guidelines. Fall outside those guidelines, you do risk your standing with the organization. Pizza delivery guys regularly get fired for defending themselves from violence in the workplace. However, that is an employer decision. Remember, guidelines are NOT laws. For example, a nurse gets fired from a job for using force, but faces no legal consequences, because she acted within the confines of the LAW. LAW is always superior to employer POLICIES and GUIDELINES.

The actual instances of workplace violence in healthcare would shock you. The study of violence in healthcare receives very little funding and much of it goes unreported. Combine that with administrations desire to relieve financial liability, and you have unrealistic goals and expectations with people paying the price physically. Healthcare, because of its nature, attracts many caring people who want to truly help people. Many of these people cannot fathom the idea of a person wanting to hit, bite, scratch, stab, kick, punch, spit on or throw excrement on someone else. Because of their training and caring natures, they tend to see this person as sick, therefore they do not consider them culpable for their actions. They have little to no training as to what a crime actually is, unless it involves HIPPA, therefore often cannot connect the dots from the offender's actions to the crime.

I know of a forensic (violent psych, sometimes with violent criminal histories) that will absolutely not let a staff member defend themselves in any way shape or form. A nurse was caught by the hair and swung like a mop against the walls. She had major medical problems after. Still, no response concerning the safety of their employees. In my mind, an employer who does not concern itself with the safety of its employees has no legitimate moral or ethical standing to make rules affecting the safety of the employees. If that nurse had fought back, or other staff defended her they would have been fired. Maybe not for that action, but for some other minor infraction, for legal liability. If she had also fought back or other staff defended her, there probably would have been no legal action taken against them by people who enforce actual laws. Legally speaking she faced the possibility of serious bodily harm or death.

In my experience, many active shooter programs are designed and selected for the employer's benefit, rather than the employee's benefit. They are designed and selected to reduce financial liability for the employer, not the continued life of the employee, particularly among the education and healthcare industries. Absolutely, they should induce stress, and more importantly cause purposeful thought leading to pre-decisions through game playing. The application of stress in a controlled environment combined with scenario-based responses would be similar to a football teams playbook. Deciding how the team or individual will function before having to function has been proven to improve on-field performance. Mental conditioning exercises also have benefits in reducing the impact of PTSD. Most of our culture has had an easy life compared to historical norms. The natural state of man over the past millennia has been a state of conflict or war. What we currently experience is the aberration. This group here has excess time to study ways of conflict as a hobby, not a necessity.