The Rule of Fours

[koyote]

I guess my view on survival "rules" & "guidelines" is there is no point in them, because EVERY situation is different. Add in everyones unique physical and mental coping differences on top of that, coupled with weather, time of year etc etc etc etc and its impossible to assign (or go by) "rules" or " guidelines".

Thats what i was trying to explain in my original post. Sorry if it came across diferently. feel free to ignore me, its not going to bug me

No, it's not a terrible thing, but some people on these forums are past that point where general guidelines are needed. I think it's good for them to be able to discuss above and beyond what the average joe would expect in a survival situation without being thought of as condescending.

I'd like to take a different approach to this. We have some members here who might be able to chime in.

An SF sgt, or a SEAL, or an experienced EOD tech- all will have a very high level of skill. And All of them have a plethora of guidelines, general rules, and drills- well, drilled into them.

What I'm hearing is that these are completely valueless. Which I'd disagree with.

Being able to operate beyond guidelines comes with an intimate knowledge of the guidelines and their reasons and capabilities. Not to harp on a point, but it's the clearest example-- Simply stating that a guideline is BS because divers in SE Asia can skin dive is... not demonstrating, to me, the intimate knowledge of the guideline in question.

There's a classic Hapkido lesson that goes along the lines of "90% of all fights can be one with the front kick and reverse punch. 90% of your training for the first several years involves the reverse punch and the front kick. Advanced methods are for advanced people, who still use the front kick and reverse punch Ninety percent of the time."

 

[Bushman5]

i dont care about eod techs or specops guys. I dont have to follow their rigidly controled training. The general population will never be subject to that style of training.

however we can still think for ourselves and go past the rigid rule environtment

i'm trying to figure out how to word or post what i'm getting at here, maybe its pointless.

 

[Iboschi]

There aren't any and that's not what I'm saying. This post is a classic example. Many people feel that these are rules to live by whereas some of us who know just how far we can push ourselves and where our physical priorities lie can dismiss it. Sometimes that make those who do surpass the guidelines look like condescending jerks and that's simply not the case, it's just we already know what our personal guidelines are and don't need a survival book to generalize for us.

thank you Payette.

I think its great there is so much information available out there. HOWEVER, this can be confusing and overwhelming to many. You can try a billion different ways to do something, but in the end its the ones who SIMPLIFY those methods and who can do perform under duress without needing to think about rules or guidelines, and who can think outside the box , those are the ones that will survive.

does this make sense? i'm trying to explain it a certain way, maybe its not comign across too well?

Gentleman,

Please, can we discard the generalities for our purposes here and now. This thread is about rules of four. Can you explain how these rules (or their cousin "The Rules of Three") do not serve a greater good? When ought these rules be discarded by people with "advanced bush-crafting" skill? Let's review the cousin I'm most familar with to test your hypothesis:

The Rules of Three:
3 minutes without air
3 hours without shelter
3 days without water
3 weeks without food

What is intrinsically wrong with these?

 

[roughedges]

i dont care about eod techs or specops guys. I dont have to follow their rigidly controled training. The general population will never be subject to that style of training.

however we can still think for ourselves and go past the rigid rule environtment

i'm trying to figure out how to word or post what i'm getting at here, maybe its pointless.

I think what most everyone is trying to say is that guidelines, rules of thumb, etc. are not rule or law, there is no rigidly controlled environment.

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making some determination.

It changes dependant on environment, personal condition and any number of other factors- which is where personal knowledge and experience come into play. One needs not adhere to them as if they are gospel, they simply serve as a point of reference.

 

[Bushman5]

there is simply too many variables

 

[Iboschi]

there is simply too many variables

Such is life. The rules are designed to keep you focused on priorities. Those priorities can change depending on innumerable factors. What is important is that you know your limitations, estimate your abilities, and understand your priorities. The Rule of Three is really just a mnemonic game to keep people focused and learn W&SS priorities.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The reason the human mind develops guidelines or rules is that there are simply too many variables. Without a conceptual framework, every human would have to go out and learn it all again. By extracting patterns of knowledge, we can teach our beginners general principles, and follow those general principles with specifics, and then go on to get out and apply them all.

One direct result of internalizing the Rule of 3 (or 4) is prioritizing how much to bring on a simple hike or a longer trek or an indefinite journey. How much food, how much water, what kind of shelter -- they all flow from matching the Rule with the environment.

Saying it is all too complicated for rules is saying you just walk off into the wilderness and hope to gather and process what you need before your lack of preparation kills you. But that's not what you actually do. In fact, you compulsively built kits and explore new methods. Whether you relate them to the Rules or not, you are working the pattern that the rules refer to.

The Rules are just someone else's way of organizing what they need. WHY is it so hard for you to shut up and let others do it their own way?

 

[Rick Marchand]

3's... 4's..... whatever. Like many have tried to stress, these are meant to be survival primers... something to get you thinking. When things get sketchy, the human mind tends to shut down. Drilling "flash cards" of conventional wisdom like this into your subconcious will help you overcome. Of course, you'll have to adjust the formula to suit the occasion... situational awareness is the key.

I was surprized to see how out of hand this thread became. Too bad.


Rick

 

[koyote]

i dont care about eod techs or specops guys. I dont have to follow their rigidly controled training. The general population will never be subject to that style of training.

however we can still think for ourselves and go past the rigid rule environtment

i'm trying to figure out how to word or post what i'm getting at here, maybe its pointless.

(as an aside, the Special Operations folks have intese and varied training environments, but rigidity is most expecially lacking overall. That was part of my point. An SF or CA sgt. who can't think on their feet is worse than useless)

In order to think and go past a rigid rule environment- said rigid rules not being guidelines, as guidelines are general- you have to be able to think.

To think, you need a framework, language, ideas- a mental map. There is no "pure thought". Without the guidelines you have no possible way to go beyond them.

Granted, you may not like them because any normal person should be able to hold out for 6-9 minutes in a car that fell into a creek. But the priority is the same, right? minutes without air kills.

 

[PayetteRucker]

I'm not at all saying guidelines are completely worthless, and I'm not saying this one is. I think what I'm trying to get across is you can't just limit yourself to these rules of three, you must use your will to survive to last longer if the situation requires. You can spend nights cold, wet, and miserable and overcome. You CAN be productive when dehydrated and overcome. I see this guideline as a limitation and everyday people have lasted much longer in these situations. We all know the essential elements of survival but personally I think attempting to put any reasonable order or timeline on it gives us the general idea that we can't overcome these necessities to survive. First and foremost it is your will to remain alive that will get you through adverse situations even past this timeline.

 

[Iboschi]

I'm not at all saying guidelines are completely worthless, and I'm not saying this one is. I think what I'm trying to get across is you can't just limit yourself to these rules of three, you must use your will to survive to last longer if the situation requires. You can spend nights cold, wet, and miserable and overcome. You CAN be productive when dehydrated and overcome. I see this guideline as a limitation and everyday people have lasted much longer in these situations. We all know the essential elements of survival but personally I think attempting to put any reasonable order or timeline on it gives us the general idea that we can't overcome these necessities to survive. First and foremost it is your will to remain alive that will get you through adverse situations even past this timeline.

What on earth are you talking about? The Rules of Three aren't limitations! The Rule of Three doesn't in any way insinuate: "give up now, you've passed the mark of human limitations". Your perspective is flawed here and you're sort of being argumentative for the sake of it, in my opinion. Seriously, come to the Whine and Cheese sub-forum. There is information there relevant to you.

 

[Gadgetaholic]

I think what I'm trying to get across is you can't just limit yourself to these rules of three, you must use your will to survive to last longer if the situation requires.

Is it possible that you are misinterpreting the intention of these rules?

3 Minutes without air means that if you are in a small boat that gets hit by a big wave and suddenly find yourself underwater then you shouldn't panic - not being able to breath doesn't mean immediately dead, you can live for 3 minutes or so without air. But you will need to get to the surface or you will be dead in about 3 minutes. So you don't panic, you orientate yourself and you work out which way is up - you swim to the surface and you take the much needed breath.

3 Hours without shelter is one that I think varies the most - in summer I can go for a long time without shelter. But the rule suggests that I much consider as a high priority protection from the elements. If I consider and dismiss that as unnecessary that is just an example of me using my brain to think and recognising that this situation is what it is.

3 days without water suggests that you will have problems if you can't get fresh drinking water, but also you shouldn't immediately panic if you don't have any available - if you will be out of trouble and back into civilization within 2-3 days then you could do so without drinking at all. If you are going to be stuck for a couple of weeks then finding drinkable water is going to be an important priority.

3 weeks without food suggests that you can go quite some time without eating and all of the previous concerns are much more important for you to focus on. Of course you can't go forever without eating, but not being able to eat today or tomorrow would not normally be life threatening.

The rule of 3s does not say "if after day 3 I haven't found water than I should give up and die". I also does not imply that. It does suggest that finding water is important and 4 or more days without it is likely to give you problems. If you think that 4+ days without water wont impair your mental function and decrease your chance of survival then I think you should consider the possibility that you are wrong. If you are feeling thirsty and getting desperate for some water on day 1 then the rule tells you not to panic, you should be able to function well enough to keep going despite your thirst - you will need to find water, but you have some time to do it. The rule does nothing to limit what you can do - it just says that you should try to find some water as a higher priority than finding food.

 

[koyote]

Payette:

I think there may be a misinterpretation of the meaning of "rules" or "guidelines"

Rules as boundaries- walls of a prison- are a different thing.

These are rules that form a foundation- a platform to stand on in a bog of panic.

 

[Blue Sky]

These are rules that form a foundation- a platform to stand on in a bog of panic.

The best explanations are often the shortest as well.

 

[Bushman5]

I'm not at all saying guidelines are completely worthless, and I'm not saying this one is. I think what I'm trying to get across is you can't just limit yourself to these rules of three, you must use your will to survive to last longer if the situation requires. You can spend nights cold, wet, and miserable and overcome. You CAN be productive when dehydrated and overcome. I see this guideline as a limitation and everyday people have lasted much longer in these situations. We all know the essential elements of survival but personally I think attempting to put any reasonable order or timeline on it gives us the general idea that we can't overcome these necessities to survive. First and foremost it is your will to remain alive that will get you through adverse situations even past this timeline.

thats what i was trying to express. thank you

 

[Duzzy]

I'm not at all saying guidelines are completely worthless, and I'm not saying this one is. I think what I'm trying to get across is you can't just limit yourself to these rules of three, you must use your will to survive to last longer if the situation requires. You can spend nights cold, wet, and miserable and overcome. You CAN be productive when dehydrated and overcome. I see this guideline as a limitation and everyday people have lasted much longer in these situations. We all know the essential elements of survival but personally I think attempting to put any reasonable order or timeline on it gives us the general idea that we can't overcome these necessities to survive. First and foremost it is your will to remain alive that will get you through adverse situations even past this timeline.

I think that the whole point of the rule set is to make sure that your "will to survive" isn't overpowered by your "will to be stupid/ignorant". Because I don't care how badly you want to live, it will never match the power of ignorance/stupidity.

I, personally, think that someone who is weak willed (but uses the rules as guidelines) will last longer than someone who really wants to live but behaves like an idiot (due to stress, panic, etc.). Just my two cents.

 

[stabman]

I was surprized to see how out of hand this thread became. Too bad.

Rick

It's like Political and Prac Tac had a mutant baby.:grumpy:
Quite disappointing.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Unfortunately, some people just have to be treated as trolls, or the forum will not work. This takes a lot of the fun out of it, either way. The simple rule is, present an idea or contradict an idea, but don't characterize another member for disagreeing with your idea. I don't want to infantilize the discussion, that won't help, either. But the chest-thumping is appropriate for our cousins the gorillas, not for us.

 

[nemoaz]

I guess my question is, if you don't even understand the concept, why do you feel compelled to offer your ignorance to others? Why not ask questions? Why not get on youtube and view the survival basics from Ron Hood or others?

Life is a classroom. You should be a student. I still am. If wise professors all seem to preach the same thing, you should be listening--at least-- instead of trying to make up some series of strawman arguments or other half-cocked, inartful attempts at sophistry. '

BTW, if you truly don't understand the Rule of 3s/4s, you don't understand even the basics of survival.

There are some decent amounts of experience and training here and on Hoods Woods forums. Unfortunately, there are also some people who are little more than static. Once the signal to static ratio gets too high, it gets too laborious to even bother. That's too bad, because those who really want to learn or be inspired to learn later (in the woods, the only way these things can be learned).

BTW, I can tell by looking at the pictures or details of many of you're kits that you DON"T understand the concept that food is last. Some of you worship powerbars, fishooks and other sorts of food or tools to get food. That's typical for an American who's never really spent a few days without food. It's also proof that this thread--despite the rabbit trails-- is of utmost importance to those with little experience.

 

[demoteamone]

If you don't know your limits no rule will Apply to you.
&
To know your limits, you need to do things that in reality don't want to do..........................



Because you ass is on the line.