Charles E. James, author
Akira Ichinose, editor/researcher
Speed–accuracy tradeoff (SAT): what it is
The speed–accuracy tradeoff is the reliable pattern that, for goal-directed actions, pushing speed up tends to increase endpoint variability / errors, while demanding higher accuracy tends to increase movement time. This shows up across many “rapid aimed movement” tasks (e.g., pointing, tapping between targets) and is one of the most replicated findings in motor control and human performance research.
Fitts’ law: the classic quantitative form of SAT
What Fitts measured
In his 1954 experiments, Paul Fitts studied rapid reciprocal movements between targets and showed movement time could be predicted from task difficulty defined by distance to the target and target width (tolerance).
The core relationship
A widely used form is:
MT = a + b \cdot ID
Where:
• MT = movement time
• a, b = empirically fit constants (depend on person, device, task)
• ID = “index of difficulty” (in bits, by analogy)
Index of Difficulty (ID)
Fitts’ original formulation:
ID = \log_2\left(\frac{2A}{W}\right)
• A = movement amplitude (distance)
• W = target width (allowed spatial error along the approach axis)
A very common HCI formulation (often called the Shannon formulation):
ID = \log_2\left(\frac{A}{W} + 1\right)
This variant is popular because it behaves well over broad ranges of A and W and is used widely in interface/device evaluation work.
Throughput / “information capacity” idea
Fitts framed the relationship using an information-theory analogy, treating ID as “bits” and MT as time, motivating an “information rate” view of performance. In HCI, this is often operationalized as throughput (roughly ID/MT, with careful measurement conventions).
“Motor limits”: why SAT happens (mechanisms that produce Fitts-like behavior)
Fitts’ law is descriptive—it tells you what tends to happen. “Motor limits” explanations try to say why.
1) Signal-dependent noise (the “bigger/faster command is noisier” idea)
A major mechanistic account is that the neural control signals driving muscles are corrupted by noise whose variance scales with the size of the control signal. If you drive the system harder to go faster, variability rises—so accuracy suffers unless you change the plan (e.g., shape the trajectory) or slow down.
2) Intermittent correction / submovements (ballistic + corrective refinements)
Many rapid aimed movements look like an initial fast transport toward the target followed by corrective adjustments when needed. Models that treat movement as an optimized sequence of submovements can reproduce the logarithmic-ish SAT captured by Fitts’ law.
3) Motor-output variability theory (variability linked to amplitude and time)
Another influential account (Schmidt and colleagues) argues that accuracy limits arise from predictable relationships between movement time/amplitude and output variability, without requiring continuous within-movement correction as the primary driver.
4) Feedback control and delays (you can correct, but it takes time)
Visual and proprioceptive feedback can reduce error, but the nervous system has delays and finite correction bandwidth. Higher accuracy demands increase reliance on slower feedback-driven refinement, increasing MT. This perspective is consistent with Fitts’ original feedback/information analogy and later control-theoretic accounts.
Where Fitts’ law works well (and where it can bend)
Works especially well for:
• Rapid pointing/target acquisition
• Consistent task geometry and instructions
• Many HCI pointing tasks (mouse, touch, stylus), with proper measurement methods
Known complications:
• 2D target shapes/definitions of “width” can matter; naive choices can yield odd IDs in some geometries, motivating careful definitions and conventions.
Practical implications
For training motor skill
• If you want speed without losing accuracy, you usually must improve the system’s effective control (better planning, better timing, less variability, more efficient corrections)—not just “try harder.” SAT is a constraint that practice can shift, but not erase. (Survey-level perspective.)
For design (tools, interfaces, controls)
• Make important targets bigger and/or closer to reduce ID.
• Compare device/condition performance with standardized Fitts-style methods and throughput conventions.
Traceability (claim → source)
1. Fitts’ 1954 paper establishes MT as a function of distance and target width using an information-capacity framing → Fitts (1954).
2. Common linear model MT = a + b·ID and the Shannon-form ID are standard in HCI discussions and practice → MacKenzie (1992).
3. Shannon-form helps avoid pathological IDs in some 2D/rectangular target cases; “width” choice matters → MacKenzie (1992) 2D extension paper.
4. ISO-style / standard-method discussions for pointing evaluation & throughput conventions are summarized and recommended in HCI literature → Soukoreff & MacKenzie (2004).
5. Signal-dependent noise as a motor-planning determinant → Harris & Wolpert (1998).
6. Optimized submovement / ideal control account of rapid aimed movements (Fitts-like SAT) → Meyer et al. (1988).
7. Motor-output variability theory of rapid-movement accuracy → Schmidt et al. (1979).
8. Broad critical survey of SAT models and interpretations → Plamondon & Alimi (1997).
Fact-check (and nuance corrections)
Checked as solid / directly supported
• Fitts’ original formulation and information-capacity framing are directly in the 1954 paper.
• MacKenzie (1992) is indeed a foundational HCI synthesis explaining Fitts’ law, its use as a research/design tool, and common formulations.
• Harris & Wolpert (1998) explicitly argues for signal-dependent noise shaping motor planning.
• Meyer et al. (1988) is a canonical “ideal control / optimized submovement” account tied to rapid aimed movements and Fitts-like SAT.
• Schmidt et al. (1979) is the primary motor-output variability theory paper in Psychological Review.
• Plamondon & Alimi (1997) is a critical survey/target article on SAT interpretations.
Nuances (what to be careful about)
• “Shannon formulation is the standard”: It’s very common in HCI, but not the only valid ID definition; multiple variants exist and choice depends on context and measurement conventions. This is why standards-adjacent guidance (e.g., Soukoreff & MacKenzie’s recommendations) matters.
• Mechanisms vs law: Fitts’ law itself does not prove any single mechanism. Signal-dependent noise, optimized correction strategies, and motor-output variability can all produce similar SAT patterns. The field treats these as competing/complementary explanations rather than a settled single-cause story.
martial training & civilian self-defense translation
Below is a martial training & civilian self-defense translation of the speed–accuracy tradeoff (SAT) and Fitts’ law, framed for real violence, kata/bunkai, striking, and decision-making under stress—not sport point-sparring abstractions.
1. The SAT principle in plain martial terms
Rule of reality:
The faster you try to act, the sloppier your result becomes—unless the task is made simpler.
In a fight, this means:
• Fast ≠ precise
• Precise ≠ fast
• You always choose a compromise—consciously or not
The body is governed by motor limits, not willpower. You cannot “decide” your way out of this tradeoff.
2. Fitts’ law, translated to violence
Fitts’ law says movement time depends on:
• Distance to target
• Size of the target
Key insight:
You go faster by making the task easier—not by trying harder.
3. Why people miss under pressure (motor limits)
A. Signal-dependent noise (fight physiology)
When adrenaline spikes:
• Neural drive increases
• Muscle activation becomes stronger and noisier
• Fine control degrades
Martial consequence:
Fast, high-effort strikes become less accurate—especially to small targets.
📌 This is why “just hit the throat/eyes” often fails under real stress.
B. Submovements & corrections (why speed collapses accuracy)
Fast actions often include:
1. A ballistic launch
2. One or more corrective adjustments
Under surprise or fear:
• Corrections may not happen
• Or happen too late
Martial consequence:
You either:
• Slow down to correct
• Or miss entirely
📌 This explains wild punches, missed grabs, and over-commitment.
C. Feedback delays (why precision costs time)
Vision, proprioception, and balance feedback all take time.
• High accuracy → slower actions
• Low accuracy → faster but sloppier actions
Martial consequence:
You must choose gross motor solutions when time is short.
4. What SAT means for striking strategy
Small targets (high difficulty)
• Throat
• Eyes
• Jaw hinge
• Nerve points
Require:
• Slower execution
• Stable base
• Better setup
Large targets (low difficulty)
• Head as a whole
• Chest
• Pelvis
• Thighs
• Arms controlling space
Allow:
• Faster execution
• Less precision
• Higher success under stress
📌 Civilian self-defense bias:
Hit big, hit close, hit now.
Why close-range systems work:
They reduce distance, collapsing the speed–accuracy tradeoff in your favor.
6. Kata and bunkai: hidden SAT training
Traditional kata often:
• Compress distance
• Use linear entries
• Target large structures
• Emphasize posture and alignment
This is not aesthetic—it’s motor realism.
Kata encodes:
• Low-ID solutions
• That work when cognition collapses
📌 Kata trains solutions that survive stress.
7. Why “speed training” often backfires
Common mistake:
“Move faster until you get accurate.”
Motor reality:
Accuracy collapses before speed stabilizes.
Correct order:
1. Make the task bigger
2. Make the distance shorter
3. Make the structure stronger
4. Then increase speed
This is constraint-led training, not brute repetition.
This reminds me of,
"Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast," a principle from military training (like Navy SEALs) and other disciplines, meaning that taking your time to perform an action correctly and without error (smoothly) ultimately allows you to perform it much faster and more efficiently than rushing and making mistakes. In general, "slow" means lacking speed, being deliberate, dull, or gradual, the opposite of quick, but in this context, it's a philosophy for achieving speed through precision.
8. How to train around the tradeoff (practical drills)
Drill 1: Target inflation
• Start with large pads / zones
• Progressively shrink the target
• Maintain speed
Goal: push the curve safely
Drill 2: Distance collapse
• Begin strikes from touching range
• No chambering
• Minimal travel
Goal: reduce ID, not increase effort
Drill 3: Time-pressure degradation
• Perform technique at full speed
• Observe where accuracy breaks
• Back off slightly
Goal: identify your real operating envelope
Drill 4: Fatigue realism
• Apply strikes after breath holds, sprints, or stressors
• Watch accuracy decay
Goal: train for worst-case motor noise
9. Decision-making is subject to the same tradeoff
SAT doesn’t just apply to movement—it applies to choice.
• Fast decisions → coarse categories (“threat / not threat”)
• Slow decisions → finer discrimination
Self-defense implication:
Pre-decide simple action rules:
• Distance triggers
• Hand position triggers
• Verbal threshold triggers
📌 You cannot think precisely at speed—so simplify ahead of time.
10. The core martial takeaway (laminated-card version)
Under stress, accuracy dies first.
Speed survives only when the task is simple.
Train to make violence easy—not elegant.
Fact-check (martial translation integrity)
✔ Supported by motor-control science
• Speed degrades accuracy due to signal-dependent noise
• Large targets and short distances preserve performance
• Gross motor actions outperform fine motor actions under stress
✔ Supported by applied violence research
• Close-range, high-probability actions succeed more often
• Precision targeting fails under adrenalized conditions
• Constraint-led training outperforms speed-only drills
⚠ Clarification
• SAT does not mean “slow is always better”
• It means task simplification beats effort escalation
use-of-force
Below is the use-of-force / legal survivability translation of the speed–accuracy tradeoff (SAT)and Fitts’ law, written in the language prosecutors, juries, investigators, and expert witnesses understand—reasonableness, necessity, proportionality, and articulable facts.
Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff (SAT) in Legal Self-Defense Terms
Executive legal framing (plain English)
Under threat, humans lose fine motor precision first.
Reasonable defenders therefore use simple, gross actions aimed at large targets and short distances.
This is normal human performance, not recklessness.
SAT explains why lawful self-defense looks “inelegant” on video—and why that inelegance is expected and reasonable under stress.
1. Reasonableness: what the law actually judges
In civilian self-defense cases, the central question is not technical perfection, but whether your actions were:
• Reasonable under the circumstances
• Necessary to stop an imminent threat
• Proportionate to that threat
• Consistent with known human limitations
SAT directly supports the last point.
Legal translation
• You are not judged by calm, slow, hindsight standards
• You are judged by what a reasonable person under sudden threat could do
SAT provides a scientific basis for why precise targeting and refined technique are unreasonable expectations in real danger.
2. Why precision fails — and why that matters legally
Motor reality under threat
• Adrenaline increases force and speed
• Neural control becomes noisier
• Fine targeting degrades before gross movement
Legal implication
Expecting precise actions (e.g., eye strikes, nerve hits, weapon disarms) under surprise assault is scientifically unrealistic.
This matters because:
• Prosecutors often ask: “Why didn’t you just do X instead?”
• SAT provides the answer: X requires precision the human body cannot reliably produce under threat
3. Target choice and proportionality
Small targets = high risk, legally and physically
• Eyes
• Throat
• Specific nerves or joints
Problems:
• High miss probability
• Higher chance of catastrophic injury
• Harder to justify as “necessary” rather than “excessive”
Large targets = defensible choices
• Torso
• Pelvic structure
• Arms controlling space
• Whole head area (not a pinpoint)
Legal advantage:
• Easier to articulate as defensive stopping actions
• Less likely to be framed as deliberate maiming
• More consistent with stress-limited motor control
SAT favors large targets. Law favors restraint that still works.
These align.
4. Distance collapse = legal survivability
Why close range matters
As distance increases:
• Accuracy drops
• Misses increase
• Bystander risk rises
Legal translation
Closing distance:
• Reduces uncontrolled strikes
• Reduces stray impacts
• Increases control over outcome
This supports arguments of:
• Containment
• Threat control
• Risk minimization
5. Speed ≠ aggression (important courtroom distinction)
SAT clarifies a critical misconception:
Fast action is not aggressive intent.
It is time-critical necessity.
When danger is imminent:
• Delay increases injury risk
• Speed is required
• Precision is biologically constrained
How to articulate this
“I acted quickly because the threat was immediate. I used simple, direct actions because complex or precise actions are unreliable under sudden stress.”
That is a reasonable-person explanation, grounded in human performance science.
6. Why “less lethal but precise” expectations fail legally
A common prosecutorial or civil claim:
“You could have used a less harmful technique.”
SAT rebuttal:
• “Less harmful” often means more precise
• More precise means less reliable under threat
• Less reliable increases:
• Defender injury
• Loss of control
• Escalation
Legal takeaway
Choosing reliable, gross motor actions can be more legally defensible than attempting “surgical” techniques that fail.
7. Decision-making under threat (cognitive SAT)
SAT applies to decisions, not just movements.
Under time pressure:
• Humans categorize broadly
• Nuanced reasoning collapses
Legal implication
Pre-planned, simple rules (e.g., “if distance closes and hands rise, create space and disengage”) are:
• More realistic
• More defensible
• Less prone to error
Simple decision rules are safer—and legally smarter—than improvisation.
8. Video evidence and hindsight bias
SAT is crucial when:
• Incidents are caught on video
• Slow-motion replay exaggerates “choices”
Legal framing
• Human nervous systems operate in real time, not frame-by-frame
• SAT explains why:
• Movements look rushed
• Techniques look crude
• Accuracy degrades
This directly counters:
• “You had time to do something else”
• “You could have aimed better”
9. Training implications that survive legal scrutiny
Legally survivable training emphasizes:
• Gross motor skills
• Close-range solutions
• Target zones, not points
• Stress-exposed practice
• Clear disengagement goals
Red flags (legally)
• Obsession with lethal precision
• Techniques requiring perfect timing
• Training narratives emphasizing domination or punishment
SAT supports defensive sufficiency, not excessive force.
10. Court-ready summary (expert-style language)
“Human motor performance under sudden threat is governed by well-established speed–accuracy limits. As speed and urgency increase, fine motor precision reliably degrades. Reasonable defensive behavior therefore relies on gross, simple actions aimed at large target areas and short distances. Expecting precise or surgical actions under these conditions contradicts known human motor limits.”
Fact-check: legal translation integrity
✔ Scientifically accurate
• Stress degrades fine motor control
• Speed–accuracy tradeoff is robust and replicated
• Large targets and gross movements preserve reliability
✔ Legally consistent
• Matches “reasonable person” standard
• Aligns with necessity and proportionality doctrines
• Explains behavior without invoking aggression or intent
⚠ Clarification
• SAT does not justify unlimited force
• It explains how force is applied—not whether it is justified
• Justification still depends on imminence, necessity, and proportionality
Final legal principle (plain language)
The law does not require perfect defense.
It requires reasonable defense by an imperfect human under threat.
SAT explains why that imperfection exists—and why it is normal, expected, and defensible.
Defender’s After-action Statement Guide
Below is a Defender’s After-Action Statement Guide designed for legal survivability, grounded in human performance limits (speed–accuracy tradeoff) and written to help a civilian defender articulate actions clearly, calmly, and defensibly after a self-defense incident.
This is not legal advice; it is a communication and articulation framework that aligns with how investigators, prosecutors, and juries evaluate reasonableness.
(Reasonableness • Human Limits • Legal Survivability)
CORE PURPOSE OF YOUR STATEMENT
Your statement should do three things only:
1. Explain why action was necessary
2. Explain why the actions chosen were reasonable
3. Show that you stopped when the threat stopped
Nothing more.
You are not:
• Teaching tactics
• Justifying punishment
• Reconstructing every movement
GOLDEN RULES (READ FIRST)
• Slow down your speech
• Use plain language
• Describe fear and uncertainty, not confidence
• Do not speculate
• Do not name techniques or targets precisely
• Do not say “I trained to…” unless legally advisedBelow is a Defender’s After-Action Statement Guide designed for legal survivability, grounded in human performance limits (speed–accuracy tradeoff) and written to help a civilian defender articulate actions clearly, calmly, and defensibly after a self-defense incident.
This is not legal advice; it is a communication and articulation framework that aligns with how investigators, prosecutors, and juries evaluate reasonableness.
⸻
Defender’s After-Action Statement Guide
(Reasonableness • Human Limits • Legal Survivability)
⸻
CORE PURPOSE OF YOUR STATEMENT
Your statement should do three things only:
1. Explain why action was necessary
2. Explain why the actions chosen were reasonable
3. Show that you stopped when the threat stopped
Nothing more.
You are not:
• Teaching tactics
• Justifying punishment
• Reconstructing every movement
⸻
GOLDEN RULES (READ FIRST)
• Slow down your speech
• Use plain language
• Describe fear and uncertainty, not confidence
• Do not speculate
• Do not name techniques or targets precisely
• Do not say “I trained to…” unless legally advised
⸻
THE STATEMENT STRUCTURE (Use This Order)
1. Perception of Threat (WHY you acted)
Focus on what you perceived, not what you assume.
Use:
• “I perceived…”
• “I believed…”
• “I was concerned that…”
Template:
“I perceived an immediate threat. The person closed distance quickly, ignored my attempts to disengage, and I believed I was about to be assaulted.”
Why this matters legally:
• Establishes imminence
• Grounds actions in reasonable perception, not hindsight
⸻
2. Time Compression & Stress (WHY precision was not possible)
This is where speed–accuracy tradeoff quietly works for you—without naming it.
Template:
“Everything happened very quickly. I was under sudden stress and had to react immediately to protect myself.”
Optional add-on (if appropriate):
“I did not have time to carefully plan or aim precise actions.”
Why this matters:
• Counters expectations of perfect control
• Preempts “you could have done X instead”
⸻
3. Action Description (WHAT you did — safely)
Describe actions coarsely, not anatomically.
DO:
• “I struck”
• “I pushed away”
• “I created distance”
• “I attempted to disengage”
DO NOT:
• Name body parts (eyes, throat, spine)
• Name techniques
• Describe angles, mechanics, or intent to injure
Template:
“I used simple, direct actions to stop the threat and create space so I could get away.”
Why this matters:
• Frames actions as defensive and functional
• Avoids intent language
⸻
4. Target Framing (HOW you aimed — legally safe language)
You want to avoid:
• “I aimed at X”
• “I targeted Y”
Instead, use zone language.
Template:
“I directed my actions toward the person’s general body area to stop the attack, not to cause unnecessary harm.”
Why this matters:
• Avoids deliberate-maiming narratives
• Aligns with motor-limit realities
⸻
5. Control & Disengagement (WHEN you stopped)
This is critical.
Template:
“Once the threat stopped and I was able to disengage safely, I stopped using force and moved away.”
If you called for help:
“I then sought help and contacted emergency services.”
Why this matters:
• Demonstrates proportionality
• Shows force was conditional, not punitive
⸻
6. Aftermath Condition (YOUR state, not theirs)
You may note confusion, stress, or physical symptoms.
Template:
“Afterwards, I was shaken and stressed. I am still processing what happened.”
Why this matters:
• Reinforces human limits
• Explains incomplete recall without deception
⸻
OPTIONAL: SHORT FORM STATEMENT (FIELD USE)
If you need a minimal initial statement:
“I perceived an immediate threat and acted to protect myself. Everything happened very quickly, and I used simple actions to stop the threat and create distance. Once I was safe, I disengaged and sought help.”
Then stop.
⸻
WORDS & PHRASES: SAFE vs RISKY
Prefer These
• “Perceived”
• “Believed”
• “Attempted to disengage”
• “Created distance”
• “Stopped when the threat stopped”
Avoid These
• “I decided to…”
• “I aimed for…”
• “I wanted to hurt…”
• “I taught myself to…”
• “I neutralized…”
⸻
WHAT NOT TO INCLUDE (COMMON SELF-SABOTAGE)
• Tactical breakdowns
• Martial arts terminology
• Statements about dominance or winning
• Claims of certainty (“I knew exactly what would happen”)
• Moral judgments of the attacker
⸻
WHY THIS WORKS (THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT — QUIETLY)
Without saying “speed–accuracy tradeoff,” your statement:
• Explains why precision wasn’t possible
• Normalizes coarse, fast action
• Matches known human motor limits
• Aligns with reasonable-person standards
You sound human, not rehearsed.
⸻
FINAL CHECKLIST (MENTAL)
Before speaking, ask yourself:
• Am I explaining fear and necessity, not skill?
• Am I describing effects, not techniques?
• Am I showing I stopped when I could?
If yes — you’re aligned.
⸻
ONE-SENTENCE DEFENDER PRINCIPLE
“I acted quickly because the threat was immediate, used simple actions because precision was not possible under stress, and stopped once I was safe.”
⸻
If you want, I can next:
• Turn this into a laminated wallet card
• Create a post-incident checklist (what to do before speaking)
• Adapt this to home defense / vehicle defense / public space
• Draft an expert-witness explanation that mirrors this language
Just tell me the next step.
THE STATEMENT STRUCTURE (Use This Order)
1. Perception of Threat (WHY you acted)
Focus on what you perceived, not what you assume.
Use:
• “I perceived…”
• “I believed…”
• “I was concerned that…”
Template:
“I perceived an immediate threat. The person closed distance quickly, ignored my attempts to disengage, and I believed I was about to be assaulted.”
Why this matters legally:
• Establishes imminence
• Grounds actions in reasonable perception, not hindsight
2. Time Compression & Stress (WHY precision was not possible)
This is where speed–accuracy tradeoff quietly works for you—without naming it.
Template:
“Everything happened very quickly. I was under sudden stress and had to react immediately to protect myself.”
Optional add-on (if appropriate):
“I did not have time to carefully plan or aim precise actions.”
Why this matters:
• Counters expectations of perfect control
• Preempts “you could have done X instead”
3. Action Description (WHAT you did — safely)
Describe actions coarsely, not anatomically.
DO:
• “I struck”
• “I pushed away”
• “I created distance”
• “I attempted to disengage”
DO NOT:
• Name body parts (eyes, throat, spine)
• Name techniques
• Describe angles, mechanics, or intent to injure
Template:
“I used simple, direct actions to stop the threat and create space so I could get away.”
Why this matters:
• Frames actions as defensive and functional
• Avoids intent language
4. Target Framing (HOW you aimed — legally safe language)
You want to avoid:
• “I aimed at X”
• “I targeted Y”
Instead, use zone language.
Template:
“I directed my actions toward the person’s general body area to stop the attack, not to cause unnecessary harm.”
Why this matters:
• Avoids deliberate-maiming narratives
• Aligns with motor-limit realities
5. Control & Disengagement (WHEN you stopped)
This is critical.
Template:
“Once the threat stopped and I was able to disengage safely, I stopped using force and moved away.”
If you called for help:
“I then sought help and contacted emergency services.”
Why this matters:
• Demonstrates proportionality
• Shows force was conditional, not punitive
6. Aftermath Condition (YOUR state, not theirs)
You may note confusion, stress, or physical symptoms.
Template:
“Afterwards, I was shaken and stressed. I am still processing what happened.”
Why this matters:
• Reinforces human limits
• Explains incomplete recall without deception
OPTIONAL: SHORT FORM STATEMENT (FIELD USE)
If you need a minimal initial statement:
“I perceived an immediate threat and acted to protect myself. Everything happened very quickly, and I used simple actions to stop the threat and create distance. Once I was safe, I disengaged and sought help.”
Then stop.
WORDS & PHRASES: SAFE vs RISKY
Prefer These
• “Perceived”
• “Believed”
• “Attempted to disengage”
• “Created distance”
• “Stopped when the threat stopped”
Avoid These
• “I decided to…”
• “I aimed for…”
• “I wanted to hurt…”
• “I taught myself to…”
• “I neutralized…”
WHAT NOT TO INCLUDE (COMMON SELF-SABOTAGE)
• Tactical breakdowns
• Martial arts terminology
• Statements about dominance or winning
• Claims of certainty (“I knew exactly what would happen”)
• Moral judgments of the attacker
WHY THIS WORKS (THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT — QUIETLY)
Without saying “speed–accuracy tradeoff,” your statement:
• Explains why precision wasn’t possible
• Normalizes coarse, fast action
• Matches known human motor limits
• Aligns with reasonable-person standards
You sound human, not rehearsed.
FINAL CHECKLIST (MENTAL)
Before speaking, ask yourself:
• Am I explaining fear and necessity, not skill?
• Am I describing effects, not techniques?
• Am I showing I stopped when I could?
If yes — you’re aligned.
ONE-SENTENCE DEFENDER PRINCIPLE
“I acted quickly because the threat was immediate, used simple actions because precision was not possible under stress, and stopped once I was safe.”
No comments:
Post a Comment