Slashdot Mirror
Bullying Affects Social Status?
An anonymous reader wrote to mention a ScienceDaily article about the social status effects of bullying on mice and men. From the article: "The results reveal neural mechanisms by which social learning is shaped by psychosocial experience and how antidepressants act in this particular brain circuit. They also suggest new strategies for treating mood disorders such as depression, social phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder, in which social withdrawal is a prominent symptom ... He and his colleagues also discovered that social defeat triggered an upheaval in gene expression in the target area of the circuit, the nucleus accumbens, located deep in the front part of the brain -- 309 genes increased in expression while 17 decreased."
If this isn't "news for nerds" I don't know what is.
Why it always assumed that social withdrawal is a sign of individual sickness - but not the group itself which should stand in judgement?
I suggest you read Slashdot
In extreme cases, such as people with actual social phobias, being able to better control their disorder with anti-depressants sounds fine, but I hope this doesn't get turned around so that the "treatment" for bullying is to medicate the victim and ignore the actual cause (the actual bully)
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
But.... Bullying is what made me the man I am today. I can easily pick out the "bully" in a group and then I can use intelligence, postioning, and execution to cull that person (or personality) from my work environment. It makes my life easier and the workplace easier to go to.
On a side note, if we can treat true depression and PTSD with a gene therapy, GREAT! It will allow Veterans who went through a horrible situation to undo the psych damage and return to a normal life. Same with clinical depression. Remove the behavioral restrictions and open that person up again. I see a much happier world if this actually comes to pass!
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
This study is interesting because it ties antidepressants right back to behavior. The percentage of Americans who use antidepressants is at least 15% and rising. Taken together, this means a sizeable segment of society is acting differently than they would have before. What, I wonder, are the aggregate impacts on society?
Isn't this Slashdot? News for Nerds?
I think this crowd knows very well the effects of bullying.
Improved anti-depressant treatments are nice and all, but how about a treatment for the source of the problem: the bully. There are enough cases of kids picked on past the breaking point, that we should learn to focus on treating the cause not the symptoms of social abuse. Give the drugs to the jerks who feel the need to dominate and humliate.
We are all just people.
I'm not saying Republicans are bullies and Democrats are victims or anything, but there sure seem to be a lot of people who just don't "get" the need for judicial oversight, fair representation in court or congress, support for the poor, or the concept of a truly open marketplace.
[
This article is saying that being bullied leads to social discouragement. This leads to social self-estrangement -- the person (mouse, actually, but by extensions it may apply to humans) who has been bullied repeatedly eventually gives up trying to form social relationships and becomes more of a hermit.
The implications are that this is a neurochemical change because some of the effects of this discouragement can be reversed either by genetic differences or by anti-depressents that probably repress the mechanisms that change the brain chemistry towards social isolationism.
---- I'm out of your mind!
I'm a nerd or certainly was for one for sure. A number of years ago I started studying Buddhism (no seriously). One of the more difficult concepts of Buddhism is something called Emptiness. Basically its a philosophy that none of this crap really matters because, well, it does really exist - hence emptiness. At least not in the way we think it does.
It is our attachment to what others think (social status) that causes our unhappiness, shame and embarrassment. So if it doesn't exist then there's nothing to be attached to and nothing to be fearful of. Once I came to deeply realize this I was able to exploit it (OK, it is not what the Buddha had in mind) and achieve a much elevated social status. Even though I don't care about it, it does make my life a little easier.
So the next time someone put you on the spot just shrug your shoulders and say "what ever".
For a much more in depth look at this check out Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle". It is an amazing new insight on how evolution really works, as competition between groups (superorganisms). He analyzes in depth the mechanisms that make drive this process. One of the main mechanisms is the pecking order, and the affect of an organism's (including a human) status in the pecking order on its biology is significant and surprising. I thought this book was amazing, revolutionary, and jam-packed with new ideas that ring true, supported by research from all corners of science.
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
What this appears to infer is that bullying is an effective social strategy. Perhaps I should say, of its own and in a limited social context.
Effective down to the biological level.
If we can acknowledge that, perhaps we can stop some of the frustrating rhetoric about how the bully is "wrong" and should be "understood".
So, the bully has something tangible to gain from their behavior. (And I mean not just the immediate response but the long term social implications.) Does "correcting" that behavior address the sole root of the problem? Or do we also need to give those bullied effective tools for dealing with the bullying and for maintaining self esteem? Do we let them know just how important it is to maintain that self-esteem? (The article is saying that in failing to do so, they essentially become hard-wired for a different and seemingly less satisfying social role).
The bullying exists within a social context with constraining bounds. The parent of a bullied child can't go an beat the cr*p out of the bully -- not without going to jail. There are already limits that have been decided upon. So, we get to make choices. Can we then also choose and foster, at least to some extent, the types of personalities we wish to see succeed? The type of society we with to propagate?
For my part, if I ever have kids, they will have martial arts training. That part is a simple decision for me. It won't solve every problem, but it will increase the odds considerably that they won't find themselves forced to be pushed around, at least physically. And perhaps a good instructor can help with some of the mental aspects, as well -- I understand that is an essential component of good training.
How is this a good thing? It says that if they turn off your ability to learn the signs that a situation is potentially dangerous, you won't develop "social avoidance behaviour" due to bullying. That's nice, but wouldn't that mean you have to give the treatment BEFORE the subject is bullied? What does that due to being able to cope in real life? Would the subject end up being more prone to being mugged, raped, or caught in various violent situations due to his/her inability to recognize threatening behaviour and respond appropriately? This doesn't seem at all useful or even particularly enlightening. People know extensive bullying as a child often causes those social issues, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but the only real solution is to get rid of the bullies - NOT to cripple the poor kids' ability to learn on the suspicion that they might be bullied later on.
Violence that begets violence never ends. Violence that results in financial and social penalties has a limited life span.
Pining for the fjords
That is because this slashdot-linked review is an over-simplification of the actual study. The mice lacking the gene probably have lost the ability to remember they were subjected to aggression previously. That is they are behaving naively. They aren't kissing up, they just don't know they were picked on previously. You should read the F study RTFS http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;311 /5762/864 but your conclusion is supported by the article, from what I can see, maybe the article should RTFS.
But I choose solitude. Is it not the geeky thing to do? I don't mean, fortifying myself in my room, switching off the lights, and avoiding outside contact with the universe, I mean, generally keeping away from the "ordinary populace".
I'll be honest, normal people annoy me. Perhaps it is elitism, or maybe I just see myself as "different", although that seems to come straight from a book on politically correct speech. I don't like normal people. I don't like interacting with them, not because I fear them, but because they're just SO boring. I don't care about football, or "like, how totally scandalous Sarah's new hairdo" is. Normal people seem shortsighted and keep nothing below the surface, and have an interest in whatever the media and pack mentality pushes on them.
I go to a school for "gifted" children, or supposedly the top ten percent in any case, an English Grammar School, and I was bullied, I really was, but it taught me so much about humans and how society operates. I saw how countless "leaders" of packs coerced and forced others, who I could see did not want to bully me, get pushed into it, and happily tried to apply pain to me, simply to save their own skin, stay popular and not stand up for their own opinions. Over time, I could see them get intoxicated with the power over me and happily coerce others into it. Some people are such simple creatures, that socialising with them would just be boring. The bullying stopped once I just stood up for myself, because, hey, no bully has any real courage when confronted, they enjoy picking on the weakest in the largest possible pack, which they're always attempting to increase in size, after all.
I have friends, but I choose a few good, non-normal friends over the armies of "friends" everyone else has, who are nice to each other simply to save face and not be socially outcast, the worst possible punishment of all.
I would be seen as socially outcast, and perhaps with a "social phobia", but this is all by choice, to avoid people I just don't care about, and I'm not the only one, there are more than a handful in my school. For example, one of my female friends and I were discussing something geeky, along the lines of whether stargates were physically possible, when some girl swanned up to her (because she was female and OBVIOUSLY part of a pack, by standard) and said,
"OOhmigawd, did you see what Gwen Stephanie wore at the MTV awards? I mean, totally disasterous!"
"....I didn't watch it."
"Oh, poor YOU, don't worry, I think it's like, repeating on sunday or something."
"No, I just really don't care about it."
*Girl stands there for a minute, with a half puzzled, half offended look, before spying someone else to go and verbally assualt and rushes off*
Perhaps I'm an extreme, and very pessimistic, but why is avoiding branches of society always seen as an illness? Us geeks and nerds, we tend to make up a large proportion of the excellent minds of humanity, the open minded sector, why is it that they try to "treat" us? We affect humanity more with our research and interests, more than the guy who's going to lay bricks for a living, but is socially accepted ever will? Why not try it the other way around? Why arn't THEY at fault?
I guess for several reasons. People don't like to think they're wrong, and when most people don't want to be wrong, groupthink makes sure they're right, and their society is best. Management likes us to comply. Different thinking people only cause problems, whereas cattlepeople are easy to manage and handle. This works on every level, even some parents would prefer their children to be non geeks and normal, so the punishment of "go to your room, and you're not going out for three days" would actually work. Society also doesn't like splinter cells, they are scary, and different. If they can be forced to comply, the threat is gone, and obviously the status quo. was therefore correct.
I have geeky interests. I have a few close true friends. I like so