Pre-incident indicators, or PINs, are now understood as critical precursors to any act of violence.

Often described as a "gut feeling" or an inexplicable sense of knowing, intuition is a complex cognitive process and a key player in the realm of human survival and decision-making. It's not a mystical phenomenon, but rather a rapid-fire, subconscious analysis of the information we've gathered and stored through past experiences and sensory input.

Intuition, at first glance, seems a poor candidate for an evolutionary story. It's clearly not a conscious adaptation. But if we think of it as something passed along by our ancestors as a useful way to survive, it starts to fit nicely. A mechanism that allows for rapid evaluation of a situation without requiring the kind of deliberative reasoning that might cause undue momentary pause before action seems a good bet. And the amygdala, the brain's emotional centre, seems a likely candidate for carrying out such fast computing.

Gavin de Becker is a big name in this field, of course, and his book, "The Gift of Fear," is probably the leading edge of this wave of thoughts and ideas. In it, de Becker posits that "patterns of behaviour" predict acts of violence better, and more consistently, than any set of personality traits, background characteristics, or other "profile-able" sets of variables.

De Becker's theory has a main idea - that violence isn't as unpredictable as it seems. Many violent acts can be seen coming if you know what to look for - what kind of patterns to observe. The really interesting part of this (and what makes it not just a theory but also a kind of "how to" for better personal safety) is that De Becker identifies a number of general behaviours exhibited by people who go on to commit violent acts.

This process hinges on the intuition of individuals. When dealing with someone who may be a threat, individuals often experience a sense of discomfort. Validation of intuition is a major reason for the existence of PINs. While not everyone can articulate the reasons for their discomfort, understanding the behaviours that can lead to this kind of intuitive feeling can help make sense of it when it is experienced.

Discomfort is an important signal, and if people are better able to interpret it, then they can act more effectively on the signals their bodies are sending. In De Becker's view, no one should fail to recognise the essential pre-incident indicators for what they are.

An especially insidious form of manipulation is forced teaming.

When someone is trying to manipulate you, they will use "we" and "us" a lot, and for good reason. Studies have shown that using these words creates a kind of automatic solidarity that makes people momentarily feel as if they are on the same side. But in a situation that calls for suspicion, when someone is using "we" or "us," recognise that their words are probably not a benign reflection of the solidarity they feel with you. Instead, their words are most likely a cover for a power play - that is, an attempt to manipulate you into ceding them your power. And honestly, the best way in which to combat forced teaming is to call it for what it is - a power play.

Excessive charm and niceness, though appearing harmless, are capable of being just as deceptive as outright rudeness. A kindness that is genuine can be trusted, but a kindness that is feigned is a red flag, signalling that we need to closely scrutinise our relationship with the person who is telling us to trust them.

De Becker places particular emphasis on that old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." He reminds us to heed the contextual and behavioural clues that are making us feel good about a person and to consider those clues in producing a kind of "trust calculus." Is our kindness calculator adding up to genuine kindness, or are we just being made to feel good in the service of a future "trust capacity" on our part?

Another important warning sign is when too much unwanted detail is provided. When people lie, they often feel the need to maintain a cover story and thus overcompensate with needless information. They think that giving more detail makes them look more believable, but it usually has the opposite effect.

Overwhelming the listener with too much detail, in fact, can be a kind of red herring. If someone is telling a story with the added flavour of way too many details, that should at least raise an eyebrow and make you question what's really going on. If what is being said is even close to the truth, then should there really be quite so many words? If there is the appearance of being too detailed, one should also question why the thing being detailed is important enough to warrant so many more words than we originally thought it would take.

The message from De Becker is clear - these indicators are not casual nuances to be observed; they are vital warning signs that demand immediate action. He champions an approach to safety where people are empowered to recognise and respond to threats. This is not about being paranoid, it is about observation and intuition. And if one has good pre-incident observation skills, one might as well trust the ol' reptilian brain to trigger the pre-incident observation indicator (which does happen in some people) that one might be in a dangerous situation. And if you are in a dangerous situation, rather than being overcome by fear, a more useful response is to maintain calm and think through one's options.

The number and types of uses for PINS are too numerous to mention.

PINS one basic use, and perhaps the one that's most familiar to us, is in the area of personal safety. Knowing how to recognise potential violence through these behavioural indicators exponentially increases the odds of you not winding up in a dangerous confrontation. And even if you do happen to come face-to-face with the sorts of individuals we're describing here, just being aware of the potential for violence that could be happening right then and there allows you to either safely disengage or take some kind of evasive action.

Interpreting pre-incident indicators (PINs) demands utmost attention to context.

When viewed in the context of potential threats and violence, PINs can reveal a great deal. However, they cannot be equated with certain foretelling. One's behaviour must always be interpreted in the context of the specific situation in which it is observed.

This is particularly true when it comes to assessing what may seem like a benign indicator or even a "tell" for a harmful plot. For example, one might use "we" or "us" in a manner typical of a "you"- sayer. They might be simply expressing camaraderie or good workplace team-building. However, when we consider the possibility that "we" and "us" are being used as prompts for positive externalisation to someone who actually isn't a part of the team, we edge a little closer to harmful with a stretch of daylight between here and what might be a normal or expected context. Similarly, when one is giving a lot of detail, they might just be giving a lot of detail. However, consider giving a lot of detail in the right context, and it might be linked to not naturally being verbose, but being loquacious or just plain making it all up.