Physical and Psychological Traits That Dissuade Attack
by CEJames (researcher/author) & Akira C. Ichinose (editor/research assistant)
[James-Ichinose]
Still water runs deep —
the wolf turns from the oak tree,
roots grip the hard earth.
Eyes meet, spine does not bend —
predator reads the body,
moves to softer ground.
Keikoku (警告) — Caveat
The content presented in this work is produced solely for educational, research, and creative purposes and does not constitute legal advice, a certified self-defense methodology, or the official position of any organization, institution, or government body.
All views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone. Laws and statutes governing the use of force, personal protection, and related conduct vary by jurisdiction. Readers and practitioners are strongly advised to consult a qualified attorney and to seek instruction from a certified self-defense professional before making any decisions regarding personal protection or the use of force.
Where this work contains fictional narrative, all names, characters, incidents, and dialogue are products of the authors' imagination and are not to be construed as factual, historical, or representative of any real person, living or dead, or any actual event. Any resemblance to real persons or events is entirely coincidental.
All content is protected under applicable copyright law. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission of this material, in whole or in part, by any means — electronic, mechanical, photographic, or otherwise — is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of the authors.
Introduction: The Language of Danger
There is a language that predators speak fluently — one written not in words but in posture, pace, eye contact, and presence. Long before a fist is raised or a threat is spoken aloud, the experienced attacker has already read his potential victim the way a sailor reads the weather: scanning for signs of vulnerability, weakness, or inattention. The good news, and it is genuinely good news, is that this same language can be spoken back. The traits — physical and psychological — that make a person a less attractive target are learnable. They are not exclusively the province of the large, the young, or the professionally trained.
This document explores what the research and practitioner literature tell us about deterrence at the individual level — not military deterrence, not geopolitical posturing, but the quiet, daily business of moving through the world in a way that communicates: this one will cost you more than you're willing to pay.
We will look at physical signals, psychological signals, behavioral habits, and the internal states that produce them. We will consider the parable of the traveler and the brigand, and we will sit honestly with the counterargument: that this entire framework has limits, blind spots, and can become its own form of overconfidence if misapplied.
I. What Predators Actually Look For: The Research
The Grayson-Stein Studies
In 1981 and again in 1984, sociologists Betty Grayson and Morris Stein conducted landmark research in which they showed videos of pedestrians to convicted violent offenders. The prisoners were asked to identify, within seconds, who they would and would not target. The results were striking: attackers made their selections within seven seconds, and their choices had almost nothing to do with size or apparent physical strength. They were responding to gait, posture, eye contact patterns, and what the researchers called "submissive signals."
The walkers rated most vulnerable shuffled their feet, took short uncertain steps, held their gaze downward, and moved as though they were apologizing for occupying space. Those rated least vulnerable moved with a fluid, purposeful stride — what the researchers called "wholeness of movement" — held their head level, and scanned their environment with relaxed, confident eye contact.
Size was not a significant variable. A large man moving with a shuffle and downcast eyes was rated vulnerable. A smaller woman moving with purpose and clear situational awareness was rated not worth the trouble.
What Criminals Are Doing in Those Seven Seconds
From the street-level perspective documented by criminologists and former law enforcement interviewers — most notably Gavin de Becker, Marc MacYoung, and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman — opportunistic attackers are running a rapid cost-benefit analysis. They are not philosophers, but they are practical. The questions they are implicitly asking include:
- Will this person see me coming?
- Will this person resist, and how effectively?
- Will this person create a scene that draws witnesses?
- Will I get away cleanly, or will there be consequences?
Anything you do that answers those questions in an unfavorable way — from the attacker's perspective — functions as deterrence.
- Awareness deters.
- Confident bearing deters.
- Purposeful movement deters.
- A calm, direct gaze deters.
II. Physical Traits and Signals
Gait and Posture: The Whole-Body Signal
Your walk is a broadcast. Evolutionary biologists note that humans — like most social animals — read locomotion for threat assessment. An upright, balanced posture with arms swinging naturally signals vigor and alertness. Slumped shoulders, a forward head position, and a shuffling gait signal fatigue, depression, or defeated affect — all of which read, to the predatory eye, as low-cost target.
The martial arts tradition has long understood this. In Okinawan karate, the concept of fudoshin — the "immovable mind" — manifests physically as a rooted, settled posture. The practitioner who has trained fudoshin does not look frightened, and that lack of fear-signal is itself protective. Not because it guarantees safety, but because it shifts the cost-benefit calculation.
Parable of the Two Merchants:
Two merchants walk the same road through the same forest. The first keeps his coin purse clutched to his chest, glances backward at every sound, and walks with hurried, uneven steps. The second keeps his hands free, his pace measured, and his eyes moving in relaxed, unhurried arcs across the road ahead. A third man watching from the tree line steps out toward the first merchant — and lets the second pass unmolested. The forest did not change. The road did not change. Only what each man communicated about himself changed.
Eye Contact: The Predator's Thermometer
Sustained, relaxed, direct eye contact is among the most powerful individual deterrents documented in the criminological literature. This is not the wide-eyed stare of aggression — that can itself invite escalation — but the calm, unhurried acknowledgment that communicates: I see you. I am aware. I am not afraid.
Avoiding eye contact, by contrast, signals one of several things an attacker finds useful: unawareness, fear, or a desire not to be noticed. All three work in his favor. The person who walks with eyes cast down, earbuds in, attention locked to a phone, is broadcasting their unavailability to the social contract — and their availability to those who exploit it.
The Japanese martial concept of metsuke — "eye contact" in its deeper sense, translated variously as "seeing without staring," or "mountain shadow gaze" — describes the wide, soft focus that perceives the entire environment rather than fixating on any single point. It is awareness made visible. The practitioner of good metsuke sees everything, reacts to everything, and is perceived — by those paying attention — as someone who cannot easily be surprised.
Voice and Verbal Presence
Research on verbal assertiveness — particularly the work of Judith Herman and the practitioner literature on boundary-setting in personal protection — indicates that a firm, calm, direct verbal response to pre-attack probing is itself a deterrent. Many attacks are preceded by "interviews" — casual-seeming inquiries designed to assess compliance, distraction, or fear. The person who responds to an unwanted approach with a calm, clear "I need you to stop" rather than an apologetic mumble communicates that the social calculus here is not going to go smoothly.
This is not about aggression or volume. Shouting signals anxiety. A measured, low-register, unambiguous voice signals control — of the self and of the situation.
Physical Fitness and Capability Signals
While the Grayson-Stein research correctly deflates the myth that size equals safety, physical capability matters in a more nuanced way. A person who moves with suppleness, whose posture suggests functional strength, and whose recovery from being jostled or startled is quick and balanced, signals to the perceptive observer that there will be a physical cost to any engagement. This is not about bodybuilding aesthetics; it is about the functional physical competence that manifests in how a person inhabits their body.
Regular martial arts or combatives training, even at a modest level, tends to produce exactly these signals — not because the training itself is visible, but because it changes how practitioners carry and move themselves.
III. Psychological Traits and Internal States
The Calm That Reads As Competence
Marc MacYoung, one of the most practically grounded writers on street-level violence, makes the point that genuine calm — not performed bravado, not affected toughness, but actual psychological equanimity — communicates something to other human beings that is extremely difficult to fake. Experienced people on both sides of the law can smell the difference between someone who is actually comfortable in a difficult environment and someone who is pretending to be.
The Stoic tradition would have recognized this immediately. The Stoic sage — not as an idealized impossibility but as a practical aspiration — is precisely the person who has done the internal work to remain functional under pressure. Epictetus, himself enslaved for much of his life and therefore no stranger to genuine threat, argued that the only freedom we possess is the freedom of our own judgment. The person who has internalized this — who has genuinely relinquished terror at outcomes they cannot control — moves differently through the world.
Parable of the Pilgrim and the Bandit Captain: A pilgrim was taken before a bandit captain who was known to execute those who showed fear. The pilgrim stood quietly. The captain said, 'Don't you know I can kill you?' The pilgrim replied, 'Don't you know I have already made my peace with dying?' The captain, who had spent his life feeding on fear, found nothing to eat. He let the pilgrim go. He could not name what had defeated him.
Situational Awareness: The Invisible Shield
Gavin de Becker's foundational work in The Gift of Fear argues that most human beings already possess the instinctual hardware for threat recognition — what he calls "true fear" as distinguished from "unwarranted fear" — but have been socially conditioned to ignore or override it. The person who has re-learned to trust and act on their perceptive faculties is not merely safer; they look safer to those who might otherwise target them.
Jeff Cooper's color code system, developed for military and law enforcement application and subsequently adapted for civilian contexts, provides a practical framework: White (unaware), Yellow (relaxed alert), Orange (specific alert), Red (action). The civilian who habitually operates in Condition Yellow — relaxed, present, scanning — is a fundamentally different signal to a potential attacker than one perpetually in Condition White.
This connects directly to the concept of kanken/kankan from the Okinawan martial arts — the use of the eyes and ears together in integrated environmental scanning. It is situational awareness rendered as a physical and psychological practice rather than a mere checklist.
Psychological Hardening: Prior Resolved Experience
Research on post-traumatic growth — as opposed to post-traumatic stress — consistently finds that individuals who have previously navigated genuine adversity and emerged psychologically intact tend to demonstrate greater equanimity under subsequent threat. The predator reads this, often without knowing how. There is something in the bearing of the person who has already been tested that registers differently from the bearing of someone who has not.
This does not mean seeking trauma. It means deliberately engaging in voluntary stress inoculation — controlled, progressive exposure to discomfort, pressure, and physical challenge — in training environments. Martial arts, military service, demanding athletics, even simulated threat-response training serve this function. What they produce is not toughness in the cartoonish sense, but authentic composure: a system that does not panic because it has practiced not panicking.
Fudoshin and the Immovable Mind
In the classical Japanese martial tradition, fudoshin — often translated as "immovable mind" — describes the psychological state in which the practitioner is neither pulled toward aggression nor pushed toward flight by external events. It is not rigidity; it is a deeply rooted responsiveness that cannot be disrupted by the unexpected.
This state produces, in the person who has cultivated it, a quality that is visible without being dramatic. They do not tense when startled. They do not accelerate their breathing when challenged. They hold eye contact without challenge or apology. They are, in the plain language of the street, not worth the trouble — because trouble, for them, has ceased to be a catastrophe and become simply another situation requiring an appropriate response.
IV. The Integrated Picture: It Is Not Performance
The traits described above — purposeful gait, relaxed alertness, direct eye contact, verbal clarity, genuine calm, psychological groundedness — are not a costume to be put on before leaving the house. They are the byproduct of sustained internal development. The person who tries to fake confident bearing while internally terrified produces something the experienced eye recognizes immediately as theater.
This is perhaps the most important practical takeaway of the research: the goal is not to appear like a difficult target. The goal is to become one — and the appearance follows naturally from the reality. This is why the martial arts tradition insists that technique divorced from psychological development is incomplete, and why Taika Seiyu Oyata, in his teachings within the Ryute lineage, consistently emphasized the inseparability of physical and spiritual practice.
The body tells the truth. Train the mind, and the body will speak it plainly.
V. The Counterargument: Perspective-Taking and Intellectual Humility
With intellectual humility, we must acknowledge the limits of this framework.
Not All Attackers Are Opportunistic
The entire deterrence model described above applies most cleanly to what criminologists call opportunistic or predatory violence — the mugger who selects a soft target from available options. It is far less applicable to targeted violence: the domestic abuser, the stalker, the ideologically motivated attacker, the person who has specifically selected you because of who you are, your relationship to them, or your symbolic value.
No amount of confident posture deters someone who has planned an attack with deliberate preparation and determined target selection. To claim otherwise is to engage in victim-blaming dressed as empowerment — and that is a failure we are obligated to name honestly.
The Risk of Misapplied Confidence
There is a documented phenomenon in the self-defense community that might be called the "false competence plateau" — the point at which a practitioner has learned enough to feel capable but not enough to accurately assess their own limitations. Overconfident bearing in an environment that exceeds one's actual skill level can be more dangerous than appropriate caution. The person who has trained for two years and walks into a genuinely high-risk environment with swaggering confidence may be more vulnerable, not less, than the appropriately cautious person who has instead chosen not to enter that environment.
Avoidance remains the highest-percentage protective strategy. Deterrence is a distant second. We should not inadvertently suggest that the cultivation of confident presence is a substitute for situational judgment about when and where one places oneself.
Structural Vulnerabilities That No Posture Addresses
We are also compelled to note that violence in the United States — and globally — is not randomly distributed. It clusters along axes of poverty, neighborhood disinvestment, domestic circumstance, and social marginalization. The research on protective signals like gait and awareness has been developed primarily in contexts where the subject has the option of choosing different environments, different routes, different times of day.
For the person who cannot choose differently — the worker who must cross a dangerous neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. because that is the shift available, the person in a household where the attacker is already inside the door — individual deterrence signals have limited utility. This is not an argument against learning them. It is an argument for intellectual honesty about what they can and cannot address.
The Authors' Position
We believe the evidence for the protective value of the traits described herein is substantial and practically meaningful. We also believe that the framework has been overstated in popular self-defense culture in ways that obscure structural realities and can shade into victim-blaming. Both things are true simultaneously. Holding that complexity is, we think, the only intellectually honest position available.
Conclusion: The Work Is Internal
The armor you cannot see is the most durable kind. Posture can be corrected in a week. Eye contact can be practiced in a month. But the genuine psychological equanimity that makes these signals authentic rather than theatrical — that is the work of years, and it proceeds through the accumulation of challenge met, discomfort absorbed, and fear acknowledged rather than fled.
Begin where you are. Move with purpose today. Make eye contact. Put the phone away when you walk through the parking lot. Practice breathing that keeps your nervous system regulated rather than escalating it. Take a class. Read the research. But above all, understand that you are not performing for predators. You are becoming — slowly, imperfectly, genuinely — someone who is not worth the cost.
That is the old wisdom and the new research saying the same thing in different languages.
Bibliography
Primary Research and Foundational Works
Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault: Victims' nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 68–75.
Grayson, B. (1984). Follow-up studies on victimology and victim selection. [Unpublished conference paper]. Victims and Violence, John Jay College.
de Becker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence. Little, Brown.
Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2004). On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace. PPCT Research Publications.
Criminology and Victimology
MacYoung, M. (2014). A Professional's Guide to Ending Violence Quickly: How Bouncers, Bodyguards, and Other Security Professionals Handle Ugly Situations. Paladin Press.
Felson, R. B., & Steadman, H. J. (1983). Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology, 21(1), 59–74.
Pease, K. (2001). Crime futures and foresight: Challenging criminal behaviour in the information age. In D. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet. Routledge.
Martial Arts and Eastern Philosophy
Funakoshi, G. (1975). Karate-Do: My Way of Life. Kodansha International.
Oyata, S. (1998). Life protection: Ryūte principles [Seminar materials]. Ryūte International.
Draeger, D. F., & Smith, R. W. (1969). Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts. Kodansha International.
Musashi, M. (2002). The Book of Five Rings (S. F. Kaufman, Trans.). Tuttle Publishing. (Original work published c. 1645)
Stoic Philosophy
Epictetus. (2008). Discourses and Selected Writings (R. Dobbin, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Aurelius, M. (2002). Meditations (G. Hays, Trans.). Modern Library.
Irvine, W. B. (2009). A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.
Psychology and Behavioral Research
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence — From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Basic Books.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress Inoculation Training. Pergamon Press.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. Norton.
Practical Self-Defense and Law
Cooper, J. (1989). Principles of Personal Defense (Revised ed.). Paladin Press.
Ayoob, M. (2010). Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense. Gun Digest Books.
Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 200.120, 200.160, 200.200 (2023). [Use of force, self-defense, Castle Doctrine provisions].
© 2026 CEJames & Akira C. Ichinose. All rights reserved.
James-Ichinose Research & Publications
James-Ichinose — The Armor You Cannot See | Page
☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️
Reading the Flock
Submissive Signals and Predatory Selection
by CEJames (researcher/author) & Akira C. Ichinose (editor/research assistant) [James-Ichinose]
Eyes cast to the ground —
the hunter reads what the hunted
cannot hide in flesh.
Shoulders that collapse
speak a language wolves learned first —
the body betrays.
CAVEAT: Keikoku (警告)
The content presented in this work is produced solely for educational, research, and creative purposes and does not constitute legal advice, a certified self-defense methodology, or the official position of any organization, institution, or government body.
All views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone. Laws and statutes governing the use of force, personal protection, and related conduct vary by jurisdiction. Readers and practitioners are strongly advised to consult a qualified attorney and to seek instruction from a certified self-defense professional before making any decisions regarding personal protection or the use of force.
Where this work contains fictional narrative, all names, characters, incidents, and dialogue are products of the authors' imagination and are not to be construed as factual, historical, or representative of any real person, living or dead, or any actual event. Any resemblance to real persons or events is entirely coincidental.
All content is protected under applicable copyright law. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission of this material, in whole or in part, by any means — electronic, mechanical, photographic, or otherwise — is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of the authors.
Introduction: The Language Before the Act
Predators — human or otherwise — do not choose victims randomly. Long before an assault, a robbery, or any act of targeted violence, there is a process of selection. That process is largely nonverbal. It runs on cues the prey broadcasts without awareness and the predator reads with practiced fluency. This paper explores that silent language: what researchers call 'submissive signals,' how predators use them as selection criteria, and what that means for ordinary people who want to understand — and defend against — being chosen.
The research base here draws from victimology, criminology, evolutionary biology, and applied self-defense science. The goal is not to induce paranoia or stigmatize any mannerism. It is to illuminate a real dynamic in human predation, empower recognition, and ultimately, where applicable, support deliberate behavioral change.
I. The Predatory Calculus: How Targets Are Chosen
A. The Mugger's Research
In a landmark study by Grayson and Stein (1981), researchers filmed pedestrians in New York City and then showed the footage to convicted violent offenders serving time in prison. Without hesitation, offenders consistently identified the same individuals as 'easy marks' — and they could do so within seconds of viewing. When asked what they were looking at, they named things like 'the way she walked,' 'his eyes never came up,' 'he looked like he was already apologizing for existing.' The inmates were not reading resumes. They were reading bodies.
This study was replicated and refined by Lorenz, Ressler, Burgess, and others, all arriving at broadly similar conclusions: the selection of victims is a swift, largely intuitive process rooted in behavioral cues — and those cues cluster around signals of submissiveness, distraction, and low threat potential.
Parable — The Dojo Floor: Sensei Nakamura used to line his students up on the dojo floor and tell them to walk. Then he would call out which ones he would have picked for a confrontation if he were a street predator. No one was ever surprised by the names. The students who shuffled, who looked at their feet, who crossed their arms into their own chest — these were named every time. Then he would say, very quietly: 'Walk like you belong here. Walk like the floor was made for your feet.' It was the most important lesson of the year, and it happened before anyone threw a single punch.
II. What Are Submissive Signals?
A. Evolutionary Context
To understand submissive signals in the human context, it helps to begin with their origins. In nearly all social mammals, submission is communicated physically — the lowered head, the exposed throat or belly, the averted gaze. These gestures evolved as conflict-resolution tools: by broadcasting non-threat status, a lower-ranked animal could de-escalate tension with a dominant one and avoid fatal confrontation.
Human beings carry this evolutionary heritage. When we feel inferior, ashamed, frightened, or defeated, our bodies tend to contract inward — shoulders rise and curl forward, the chin drops, eye contact breaks, gait shortens and shuffles. These are remnants of primate submission displays (de Waal, 1982). The tragedy is that on a modern street, these same signals that evolved to reduce conflict with dominant members of one's own group can attract a different kind of threat entirely: the predatory one.
B. The Cluster of Submissive Cues
Researchers and practitioners in personal safety generally agree on a cluster of behaviors that correlate with increased victim selection. None of these signals is deterministic in isolation — context always matters — but in combination they substantially elevate risk:
1. Gaze Aversion and Downcast Eyes. The avoidance of eye contact signals non-threat and low status simultaneously. In primate hierarchies, sustained eye contact is a dominance behavior. Looking away, particularly looking down, communicates deference. On the street, it also signals unawareness — the person is not actively monitoring their environment.
2. Collapsed Posture. Shoulders rolled inward, chest concave, spine curved — this posture reduces apparent size and communicates withdrawal. Research by Amy Cuddy and colleagues (2010) on 'power postures' demonstrated that collapsed, contractive postures are read by observers as low-status and low-confidence, even when assessed in extremely brief exposures.
3. Shortened, Shuffling Gait. The Grayson-Stein study found that stride length and gait fluidity were among the strongest predictors identified by offenders. A purposeful stride — weight-through, heel-to-toe, arms swinging freely — communicates spatial ownership and physical capability. A shuffle communicates the opposite.
4. Distraction and Internal Focus. A person absorbed in their phone, lost in earbuds, carrying awkward loads, or visibly preoccupied projects inattention. From a predator's cost-benefit calculation, an inattentive target is dramatically safer to approach than an alert one. The awareness gap is itself a vulnerability cue.
5. Nervous Self-Touch and Pacifying Behaviors. Touching the neck, pulling at clothing, wringing hands, excessive blinking — these self-soothing gestures broadcast anxiety. Joe Navarro (2008), who spent decades as an FBI behavioral analyst, documents extensively how pacifying behaviors serve as leakage of internal stress states. A predator reading these signals sees someone already managing fear.
6. Boundary Compliance Without Protest. When approached by strangers who violate personal space — coming too close, touching without invitation, asking intrusive questions — some individuals comply passively without asserting boundaries. This compliance itself becomes a selection signal. The person has just demonstrated they can be managed without resistance.
III. How Predators Process These Signals
A. The Intuitive Scan
Most predatory selection is not a conscious, analytical process. It functions more like what Gavin de Becker (1997) describes as 'brilliance of pattern recognition' — a fast, sub-second read of the environment that arrives as intuition. The experienced offender does not think, 'this person's stride length is below average, suggesting reduced physical confidence.' They think: 'that one.' The analysis lives below the waterline.
This has important implications. It means that deliberate analysis by the predator can be disrupted by incongruence — a person who carries one strong counter-signal (sustained, calm eye contact; a sudden change in posture; a voice that projects rather than apologizes) can break the selection calculus even if other signals remain present. The predator's fast system is looking for a coherent pattern of vulnerability. Interrupting that coherence reduces the attractiveness of the target.
B. Risk-Reward Assessment
Beyond the intuitive scan, researchers note that many predators — particularly resource-motivated ones like muggers — engage in a rapid risk-reward calculation. Submissive signals reduce the 'risk' side of that equation. They suggest the target will comply, will not fight back effectively, will not draw attention with confident resistance. The predator is, in a dark and utilitarian sense, reading probability.
Felson and Steadman (1983), and later Cornish and Clarke's (1986) Rational Choice Theory applied to crime, establish that most offenders — even impulsive ones — conduct at least a minimal cost-benefit scan. Targets who project high cost (awareness, physical confidence, potential for alarm-raising) are systematically less attractive than those who project low cost.
Parable — The Hawk and the Mouse: In the high desert where Charles lives, the red-tailed hawks do not dive at every movement in the field below. They wait. They watch. They pick — always — the mouse that pauses too long in the open, the one whose whisker-twitch says uncertain rather than ready. A hawk has never been recorded discussing field theory with another hawk. It does not need to. The reading is built in. The human predator is no different, and neither, ultimately, is the lesson: move like something worth the trouble, and the hawk finds easier quarry.
IV. The Practitioner's Response: Presence as Defense
A. Projecting Non-Target Status
The research suggests that deliberate modifications to carriage, gaze, and environmental engagement can reduce victim selection risk. This is not about performative toughness or aggressive posturing — in fact, de Becker (1997) and Miller (2008) both note that aggressive counter-displays can escalate rather than deter. What reduces selection is what might be called 'present and capable' signaling: the quiet, ambient communication of awareness, competence, and intentionality.
Practically, this means: head level and eyes scanning (not phone-absorbed), posture open and upright, gait purposeful with even weight distribution, and an ambient awareness of who is in your environment. The Okinawan concept of metsuke — the 'eye-contact' or 'looking without staring' taught in traditional budo — captures this elegantly: not a predatory hard focus, not an avoidant gaze aversion, but a soft, wide-field attention that communicates engagement with the full environment.
B. The Role of Boundary-Setting Behaviors
Research on assertiveness and physical safety converges on a consistent finding: individuals who practice polite but clear boundary assertion in everyday interactions develop a behavioral profile that is less attractive to resource-motivated predators. This is not about being rude. It is about being clear. The person who says, easily and without apology, 'No thank you, I'm good,' to an unsolicited approach has just communicated a very specific thing: I am not a passive recipient of whatever you are offering.
Parable — The Gate and the Fence: A man asked a security consultant why people with fences got robbed and people with gates did not. The consultant said: 'A fence tells me where the line is. A gate tells me you know where the line is — and that you're the one who opens it.'
V. Counter-Argument: The Limits of the Victim-Signal Framework
A. A Serious Objection
Before going further, intellectual honesty requires a genuine engagement with the strongest objection to this framework — not a strawman version of it. That objection runs something like this:
The submissive-signal model, however well-sourced in research, risks placing an unfair burden on victims by suggesting that comportment drives selection. In doing so, it can implicitly locate the cause of predatory violence in the behavior of the person attacked rather than the person who chose to attack. This is not merely a political concern. It is a moral one. No one's gait, posture, or eye contact makes them responsible for violence done to them. And many of the 'submissive signals' in the research literature are disproportionately exhibited by people who have experienced prior trauma, who are disabled, who are neuro-divergent, or who come from cultural backgrounds where, for example, sustained eye contact with strangers is considered aggressive or disrespectful.
This objection deserves to be taken seriously, not deflected.
B. The Authors' Response (With Epistemic Humility)
We hold these tensions as real ones. The research does show a correlation between certain behavioral patterns and victim selection, and that research has practical applications for personal safety education. But correlation is not moral causation. A predator's selection process tells us something about the predator's cognition — not about the moral status of the person selected. The literature on learned submissiveness and trauma-response (van der Kolk, 2014) makes clear that many of these behavioral patterns are not choices in any meaningful sense; they are survival adaptations.
Where this research is useful is in the context of informed, voluntary skill-building — giving people who want to consciously modify their environmental presentation a framework for doing so. It is not, and should not be, an accounting of why victims 'asked for it.' The only being who is responsible for predatory violence is the predator. Period.
We also acknowledge that this research has limits. Grayson and Stein's study, foundational as it is, used a specific offender population at a specific time. The ecology of street predation is not static, and over-generalization from any single study is epistemically unwarranted. We present this material as a framework for reflection and education, not a predictive algorithm.
VI. Synthesis — What This Means for the Practitioner
For the martial arts practitioner, the self-defense educator, or simply the thoughtful person who wants to move more safely through the world, the takeaways from this body of research are a handful of principles worth internalizing:
Environmental engagement is itself a deterrent. Awareness — real awareness, not its performance — is among the most effective non-target signals a person can project. The scanning mind and the scanning eye communicate a kind of quiet readiness that disrupts predatory selection.
Posture and gait are learnable. Unlike personality traits or temperament, postural habits and gait patterns are accessible to deliberate modification. This is what traditional martial arts have always understood: the body learns what it is taught, and it communicates accordingly.
The goal is presence, not aggression. The most durable counter-signal to predatory selection is not a threatening display — it is the quiet, grounded transmission of someone who is fully here, fully aware, and fully inhabiting their own space. In Okinawan terms: fudoshin, the immovable mind, expressed in the moving body.
This knowledge is liberating, not constraining. Understanding the predatory selection process gives thoughtful people more agency, not less. It is not a guarantee — nothing in human safety is — but it is one more piece of genuinely useful self-knowledge.
Bibliography
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Wilmuth, C. A., & Carney, D. R. (2012). The benefit of power posing before a high-stakes social evaluation. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 13–027.
de Becker, G. (1997). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. Little, Brown and Company.
de Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes. Harper & Row.
Felson, R. B., & Steadman, H. J. (1983). Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology, 21(1), 59–74.
Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault: Victims' nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 68–75.
Miller, R. (2008). Meditations on violence: A comparison of martial arts training and real world violence. YMAA Publication Center.
Navarro, J., & Karlins, M. (2008). What every body is saying: An ex-FBI agent's guide to speed-reading people. HarperCollins.
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking Penguin.
© 2026 CEJames & Akira C. Ichinose [James-Ichinose]. All rights reserved.
