Charles E. James, author
Akira Ichinose, editor/researcher
Below is a self-defense–oriented way to think about “projecting and refining your processes tactically”: you build a repeatable decision + action process for messy, fast situations, then you continuously tighten it using practice and structured review.
What “projecting + refining your process” means in self-defense
1) Projection: “What’s most likely next—and what’s my simplest winning line?”
In tactical contexts, “projection” is the ability to simulate the next few beats so you can act earlier, simpler, and with less hesitation.
A useful research-backed framing is Situational Awareness (SA):
• Perception (what’s here?)
• Comprehension (what does it mean?)
• Projection (what happens next if this continues?)
In civilian self-defense, projection is usually not “how do I fight,” but:
• “Is this going toward contact or away from it?”
• “If I move now, do I create distance, a barrier, witnesses, a door, a safer angle?”
• “If I delay 2 seconds, what gets worse?”
2) A process: the loop you run under stress
Under pressure, you don’t rise to your ideals—you fall to your process.
Two complementary models help here:
OODA (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act)
Not a checklist—more like a fast loop where orientation (your model of what’s happening) drives good decisions. Boyd’s original materials emphasize uncertainty, tempo, and adaptation rather than “do it fast.”
Recognition-Primed Decision Making (RPD)
Experts often don’t compare lots of options. They recognize a pattern and run a quick mental simulation (“If I do X, what will happen?”). If it seems workable, they go.
So your goal is to develop clean recognition cues + a small set of reliable actions that fit your values and local law (escape, boundaries, positioning, calling for help, etc.).
The “Tactical Process Stack” for civilian self-defense
Think of your process as layers—each one trainable.
Layer A — Early recognition cues (what you look for)
You’re refining what you sample (visual/behavioral/environmental cues) and how often you update your picture of the situation (your SA loop).
Practical outcome: fewer surprises, earlier movement, fewer “frozen” moments.
Layer B — Orientation rules (how you interpret cues)
This is where people get jammed: ambiguous social situations, fear of being “rude,” or misreading intent.
Your refinement target is simple orientation rules, for example:
• “Unknown approach + boundary violation + no compliance to my clear request = I treat it as unsafe and create distance.”
• “Hands matter. Exits matter. Companions matter.”
(Those are principles, not techniques.)
Layer C — Pre-decisions (what you decide before stress)
You can “preload” decisions using implementation intentions: If situation Y happens, then I do X.
This method has strong evidence for improving follow-through and reducing deliberation time.
Examples (civilian-safe):
• If someone closes distance after I set a boundary → I step offline, put an object between us, and use a loud command.
• If I feel “socially trapped” → I move to a better position (exit/witnesses/light) and disengage.
Layer D — Action templates (what you actually do)
Keep these few, simple, and context-legal. The tactical point is not a huge catalog; it’s:
• actions that are easy to do under arousal,
• that reliably improve safety,
• and that don’t require perfect fine-motor precision.
Stress/arousal can narrow attention and degrade complex cognition; performance often follows an “optimal arousal” zone and worsens when arousal is too high—especially for complex tasks. So your refinement target is simplicity under stress.
Refinement: how you tighten the loop over time
1) Train the “mental simulation engine” (without fantasy-fighting)
Mental rehearsal / imagery practice can improve performance across domains, especially when it’s structured and paired with real practice.
For self-defense, the safest/highest ROI imagery is:
• noticing cues,
• moving to advantage (space, barriers, exits),
• verbal boundaries,
• calling for help,
• decision points (“I leave now.”).
2) Use deliberate practice, not just repetition
Deliberate practice is focused work on specific weaknesses with feedback and clear goals, not just “doing the thing a lot.”
In your context, that might mean:
• one session focused only on boundary language timing,
• one session focused only on scanning + positioning,
• one session focused only on recovering attention after a startle.
3) Run an After-Action Review (AAR) to update your process
AARs were developed in U.S. Army training culture to turn experience into lessons learned through a structured debrief.
A civilian self-defense AAR template:
1. What did I expect to happen?
2. What actually happened?
3. What went well (keep)?
4. What went poorly (change)?
5. One concrete process update (a cue to notice earlier, an “if-then” plan, or a positioning rule)
Over time, this builds your personal “library” of patterns (RPD) and improves your orientation (OODA).
A compact “process update” you can apply immediately
When you want to refine tactically, update one of these per week:
• Cue upgrade: “The earliest reliable cue I missed was ___; next time I will check for it by ___.”
• Rule upgrade: “When ___ happens, I will treat it as ___ (unsafe / ambiguous / safe) and do ___.”
• If-then upgrade: “If ___, then I ___.”
• Environment upgrade: “I will habitually position myself near ___ (exit/light/witnesses) in ___ settings.”
• Recovery upgrade: “When startled, I will do ___ to regain attention and act.”
That’s tactical refinement: tiny updates that compound.
Bibliography (high-signal starting set)
Situation awareness / projection
• Endsley, M. R. “Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems.” Human Factors (1995).
• Endsley, M. R. “Situation Awareness: Misconceptions and Misunderstandings.” (2015).
Decision making under time pressure
• Boyd, J. R. Patterns of Conflict (briefing materials).
• Marine Corps University Press discussion of Boyd/OODA and disruption (contextual, modern doctrinal framing).
• Klein, G. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Naturalistic Decision Making, RPD).
Behavioral “pre-decisions” (if-then plans)
• Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006). “Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis…” (overviewed in later reviews).
• Wang et al. (2021). Meta-analysis on MCII (mental contrasting + implementation intentions).
• Gollwitzer (1999) overview PDF (implementation intentions fundamentals).
Learning loops / debrief
• U.S. Army Training Circular TC 7-0.1, After Action Reviews (2025).
• Wharton overview of AAR origins and use beyond the military (organizational learning lens).
Practice & mental rehearsal
• Toth et al. (2020). Meta-analysis on mental practice (motor/cognitive tasks).
• Simonsmeier et al. (2021). Meta-analysis of imagery interventions in sport (broad outcomes).
• Macnamara, Maitra (2019). Revisiting Ericsson et al. on deliberate practice (effect size debate & nuance).
Fact check (key claims, what’s solid, what needs nuance)
1. “Situational awareness has 3 levels: perception, comprehension, projection.”
Supported in Endsley’s foundational model and subsequent clarifications.
Confidence: High.
2. “RPD: experts often recognize patterns and run a quick mental simulation rather than comparing many options.”
This is the core thesis of Klein’s naturalistic decision-making work.
Confidence: High.
3. “OODA emphasizes adaptation/tempo and especially ‘orientation’ rather than just speed.”
Consistent with Boyd’s original briefing materials and serious military commentary.
Confidence: High.
4. “Implementation intentions (‘if-then’ plans) improve follow-through.”
Supported by large reviews/meta-analyses and modern syntheses (including MCII). Effects are typically small-to-moderate and depend on context and how the plan is constructed.
Confidence: High (with effect-size nuance).
5. “After Action Reviews originated in U.S. Army training and are a structured learning/debrief method.”
Supported by U.S. Army training circulars and credible secondary summaries.
Confidence: High.
6. “Mental rehearsal/imagery can improve performance.”
Backed by meta-analyses in motor/cognitive domains (often strongest when combined with physical practice and when imagery is structured).
Confidence: Medium-High (generalizable direction is strong; exact magnitude varies by task/population).
7. “High arousal can degrade complex performance (often described by Yerkes–Dodson).”
The relationship is widely cited, but it’s frequently oversimplified; task difficulty and individual differences matter.
Confidence: Medium (principle is useful; the classic curve is not a universal law).
