The 3 Ways of Loss
Lessons in martial arts, conflict, and life
Conflict, specifically winning and losing, are essential features of life. While in a perfect world, we want to focus our energies on the synergy between people and the formulation of mutually beneficial solutions, the cold hard rod of reality dictates that loss is inevitable. To put an encouraging spin on such a downbeat statement, per the quote of Nelson Mandela, “I am either winning, or I am learning.” In other words, to learn, we need to understand loss. Why do we lose? How by focusing on the loss can it help you prevent defeat but also aid in achieving victory?
I would like to help answer these questions, crystalize them into first principles, and propose there are at least three possible methods of loss. Additionally, I would like to further this thought process and suggest that putting the loss first, rather than the win, is a more robust method of strategic planning. This idea will be referred to as the “Loss First Principle.”
Regardless of a conflict with the environment, other people, or with yourself, where there is a struggle, there is eventual defeat, and using the martial arts as a tool, we can derive the three ways one can ultimately lose.
The First Principles of Loss
How do you know when the adversary has lost when in a state of conflict? Here is a question that can be used to test the threshold of defeat: can you walk away freely without harm? If the answer is “no,” the adversary has not lost.
To expand further, if an opposing actor attempts to impose their will on you, and you can freely exit the dispute without adverse effects, you have not lost. Conversely, if you attempt to impose your will on them, and they can freely exit the dispute without adverse effects, they have not lost.
The walk-away-freely-without-harm notion does not necessarily mean you have won. In other words, if you were the one imposing will onto another and successfully walked away freely without harm, you may or may not have achieved success, but you certainly did not lose either. If you and your opponent can walk away freely without harm, this would indicate a neutral draw scenario or, even more dynamic, a synergy where both have won.
When using the walk-away-freely-without-harm concept combined with a first-principles approach, all roads lead back to only three ways in which loss can occur. The other manifestations of demise can ultimately be resolved in one or more of these three methods.
Consider these three ways of loss. They are packaged as a mnemonic called the 3W’s:
- Wreck
- Wind
- Will
Let’s review each of the 3W’s.
Wreck
To wreck means to ruin an adversary’s bodily capacities. In martial arts, one can strike or grapple someone. In striking arts, through kicking and punching, the damage is placed upon an opponent, thus, breaking their body and ultimately preventing them from further participating in the conflict. They may have the Will to partake, but with an injured body, they lack the means. The damage creates a form of control. In grappling-based arts, people are put into locks, holds, chokes, thrown, and pinned. These actions may not damage you, but they restrict your movement. Taken to the extreme, putting someone in a choke hold, tying up their limbs, or restraining their movements completely, is the control side of the house. The damage-control paradigm is intertwined because damage creates control, and control can create damage. It is a conjunct relationship. The book Strategic Engagement of Force outlines this as the Force Objective Duality.
The Force Objective Duality recognizes damage and control as a polarity, not unlike electricity. Electricity has positive and negative charges. Each positive charge has a negative partner, and the synergy creates the electromagnetic phenomenon. Without each other, there would be no electrical flow. The Force Objective Duality is likened to electricity. Damage is the positive charge, and control is the negative charge.
Per the nature of dualities, the golden ratio always favors one side of the dualism over the other. Of the two sides of the Force Objective duality, which side is stronger? The answer: damage. Why? The reason is that damage, when taken to the extreme, can ultimately lead to death. Death is absolute. It is permanent. Control, when taken to the extreme, leads to no absolutes. So long as people have the power to choose their attitude, no matter how dire and restricted their circumstances, they are still free. In his book Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning, Viktor Frankl writes:
“The last of the human freedoms: to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
Recall that the true test of loss is to walk away freely without harm. To use an example, supposing I am a world-class Jujitsu expert. Jujitsu is the supreme art of control. I am walking home late one night, and I get jumped by a mugger. I use my world-class Jujitsu techniques, take him to the ground, and tie up his limbs to the point of immobilization. The opponent is neutralized. However, have they lost? Can I walk away freely without harm? In this situation, no, I cannot. The moment I release the attacker from my grips, they are free to reengage and continue whatever harm they originally intended on me. Thus, while the control side of the duality, in this case, is a temporary neutralization, it is not yielding an actual loss. Not without something else. What is that something else?
I could put a squeeze hold on their neck to choke them out. This would be damage. In the case of the choke, I limited the blood supply to the brain to cause him to pass out. Once he is unconscious, I can disengage freely without harm. Or perhaps I can put my opponent into a lock and break their leg, canceling their ability to walk. Damage again. If the lock injures their leg, regardless of their intent, they will not be able to lay chase. Thus, I can walk away freely without harm. Both examples are the first W of loss — to wreck the opponent.
While control is the weaker of the two dualities, this does not mean it is entirely nullified as a means of wrecking an adversary’s physical capacity. What if we tied our opponent to a chair? What if we cuffed them to a plumbing fixture? How about throwing them in jail? All of these solutions require some inanimate augmentation. Nevertheless, all adhere to the principle of wrecking an opponent’s physical capacities, allowing us to walk away without harm.
The interesting thing about control, it is not limited to just wreckage. It can usher in the other W’s, Wind, and Will.
The next W is Wind.
Wind
In martial arts, people who train to fight are often focused on attributes such as speed, power, timing, coordination, reflexes, techniques, and all the cool features that win fights. These are positive physical attributes. I would say that most martial arts training seems to focus on these types of physical qualities.
However, there is another set of physical attributes. An evil twin. The evil twin is negative physical attributes. The negative physical attributes are injury, doubt, and fatigue. Negative attributes work against and nullify the performance of the positive, expressed by the following formula:
Performance = (Positive Attributes) + ( — Negative Attributes)
Our first W, wreckage, is directly correlated to injury, whereas our next W correlates to fatigue. This is Wind.
The word Wind is a mnemonic that translates directly to the loss of breath. Other than a sexy mnemonic, why Wind? Once again, we go back to what we know is absolute. Death. When most people die, what is the ultimate cause of death? Lack of oxygen to the brain. However, in more broad terms, this can correlate to exhaustion in general. Exhaustion in conflict can occur in many forms — the collapse of resources, ideas, emotional strength, tiredness in general, etc. All of these examples route back to a core principle: energy loss. One only has so much energy at their disposal at any given moment. Once that energy is dissolved, it needs to be regenerated, or the opponent is neutralized.
Have you ever been in a situation when you have physically exerted yourself to the point you cannot breathe? It does not matter what the activity is, running, surfing, mountain climbing, biking, playing soccer, or even walking. Once you exhaust your wind, you are rendered completely useless. It does not matter what your skill level is in any of these domains, how strong you are, or how committed — your effectiveness, at that moment, is nullified. What is true in life is true in conflict; complete nullification, fatiguing them, allows you to walk away free from harm.
When applying strategic engagement of force, a strategy designed to exhaust an opponent is a paramount approach to victory. On a physical level, supposing you are physically outmanned, outgunned, or outwitted, but, you recognize you are in better physical shape than your adversary. Whereas your ability to Wreck a hostile’s physique is not a good option, a strategy of running them out of gas, capitalizing on your strength, and exploiting their weakness can lead you straight to victory.
While the physical domain gives us an excellent and clear case study to illustrate principles and concepts, these notions of Wreck and Wind are not limited to the physical arena. We can become emotionally-mentally damaged and controlled. We can become emotionally and mentally fatigued. We will get more into the emotional and mental aspects of loss when we get into the third method, Will.
Will
The great military strategist Carl von Clausewitz tells us that:
“If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match your effort against his powers of resistance, which can be expressed as the product of two inseparable factors, viz. the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will.”
How does Clausewitz relate to the three W’s? The total means that he articulates sums up one’s capabilities. When translated to the three W paradigm, capabilities are wreckage and wind capacity. The second factor stands on its own, the strength of Will. How can Will be employed as a method of loss?
The negative physical attributes are injury, doubt, and fatigue. Will relates to doubt. Using a simple physical example: if I decide to be a jerk, grab your hair, and your response is to kick me in the groin, the ensuing pain may be so severe that I might temporarily forget why I put my hands on you in the first place. Pain is an excellent example of a way of getting someone to question their why. Why did I pick this person to mess with as I am doubled over clutching my testicles? When one questions their why, this is a primary indicator of a loss of Will.
Whether in a conflict at work, school, relationship, a high-stakes negotiation, or a forbidding situation when one’s life is on the line, questioning your why is a terrible place to be mentally — at least if you don’t want to lose. If, during an encounter, the question comes across your mind: why am I doing this? News flash, you are losing. This is a sign you are not in proactive control of the melee. Thus, your inability to walk away freely will be compromised without being injured, victimized, or just plain old giving up. Usually, once the why is questioned, if time allows, a cascade of follow-up questions will ensue, like pulling your finger out of a leaky dike. What am I doing here? How did I end up in this situation? How do I get out of here? It then continues to unfold from here. The good news, if you can instill this upon your adversary, well, this means you are well on the road to victory.
As you can see, exertion of force is not limited to just the physical fighting arena. Holistic force is defined as movement, firepower, and communication. The most effective use of force involves all three parts applied in combination. This force formula can be expressed using the following equation:
Holistic Force = Movement + Firepower + Communication
This formula tells that while force can be physical in the classic sense — movement and firepower, it also has an unconventional characteristic — communication. In some respects, communication is physical. For example, verbal communication requires the invocation of the voice box that creates tiny vibrations in the air that are ultimately received in the eardrums, all of which are physical features. However, communication, more importantly, is the pathway into the mind. We sometimes equate communication to a mental jab, as it flies past one’s physical defense and can score a direct hit on an opponent’s mind.
When they train elite forces, the soldiers are made to run. Now, these guys are in good shape. Running for a special forces guy is no big deal. However, the trick is that they do not tell the trainee how long they will run. Will it be 10 minutes? Will it be an hour? Perhaps longer? You see, when you know how long the run is, you can pace yourself. However, without the end in mind, ambiguity and uncertainty set in. Ambiguity and uncertainty are the most significant stressors you can put on the human brain.
Movement and firepower are the methods dujour of the Force Objective Duality in the physical world. In the mental-emotional realm, communication can employ the Force Objective Duality for mental and emotional damage and control. Applying emotional-mental stressors that sow uncertainty and ambiguity can cause a psychological collapse in your adversary and a total loss of Will.
The 3W’s as They Relate to Strategy
While these three methods, Wreck, Wind, and Will, can be used in isolation, the effects can be devastating when we start putting them in combination. These three methods of loss are not an all-or-nothing proposition.
The Decisive Six is at the core of the SEF model and is a common universal principle in martial arts and the application of strategic conflict. The Decisive Six, briefly, is a six-tier hierarchy that focuses on the most critical areas of strategic combat, reference Figure 2.
The Decisive Six states that the essential part of any strategic method is first to have an objective, Level 1. In other words, to have a goal. As the influential self-help author Steven Covey eloquently states, “start with the end in mind.” Having a strategy or a plan is aimless without an articulated end state. For more information on the Decisive Six, refer to the book Strategic Engagement of Force.
In the Decisive Six, the overarching objective in the finite conflict is constant: to neutralize an opponent. To neutralize an opponent is to win the game. The strategies and tactics to win in a finite conflict are numerous, depending on the situational conditions of who, what, how, when, where, and how much.
What I would like to suggest here is a more robust approach. Instead of focusing on the objective of the win, what if we flipped the paradigm and focused on the objective of the loss? This notion of flipping the focus to the loss over the win is called the “Loss First Principle.”
As it turns out, it has been uncovered that framing things in the negative is far more useful. This flipping-to-the-negative notion is similar to how Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the famed essayist, and mathematician, flips the Golden Rule to the Silver Rule — “Do not treat others like you would not like them to treat you.” Or the way Chris Voss, famed FBI hostage negotiator, flips yes-oriented questions to no-oriented questions. Rather than ask, “is now a good time?” he will ask instead, “is now a bad time?”
What benefit would such a paradigm shift provide when dealing with conflict? The “Loss First Principle” claims the loss is inherently more robust than the win. Therefore, strategic planning built around loss creation and prevention is inherently more useful. Why?
To help explain, I will usher in the dark beacon of death once again. The loss of life is the ultimate end state of defeat and is singular in nature. On the other hand, victory is life, and there are unlimited ways to live. Death is absolute, and life is infinite.
Case in point, at the very least, using the six methods of advantage and multiplying them by the six methods of deception, we can derive there are 36 stratagems for winning conflicts. 6 x 6 = 36 stratagems (see Strategic Engagement of Force for more detail). However, since a loss is negative and absolute, it is stronger, and when we dig into the first principles of the loss, there are only three ways defeat can occur.
There are thirty-six methods of winning versus three methods of loss. I would suggest that three verses 36 is much easier to focus on at any given moment. In a nutshell, therein lies the strength of the loss as it relates to conflict strategy. Using Clausewitzian language, we can say it is convergent rather than divergent. It’s more concentrated.
In Closing
To paraphrase one of the most well-known, oldest, and established books on strategy, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, the highest good is having an opposing actor submit without fighting. So while force in totality is best used when combining the physical and the mental, if we can avoid the physical, it yields a better outcome. Having someone lose their Will before a bodily clash ensues is best for both sides, as we do not subject either to physical injury.
Many people do not like conflict. I would say more people eschew conflict rather than embrace it. It is often seen as off-putting rather than a constructive means of learning and engagement. After all, it can be challenging, take us outside our comfort zone, require constant work, and is a skill. Most of us are not born with out-of-the-box conflict-dealing competencies. As with any aptitude, they need to be developed. If you take the time to develop your engagement coping mechanisms, you will get better at it, and it will be less work, less demanding, and less effort.
To avoid conflict is to avoid life.
