Studies Reveal Why Kids Get Bullied and Rejected

Thelasko writes "I'm sure many here have been the victim of bullying at some point in their lives. A new study suggests why. '...now researchers have found at least three factors in a child's behavior that can lead to social rejection. The factors involve a child's inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from their pals.' The article sketches out some ways teachers and councilors are working with bullied kids to help them develop the missing social skills."

Comments

I could have told you that.

[Minwee]

Why are kids bullied and rejected?

Because sometimes, other kids are dicks. Next question?

Re:I could have told you that.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Some people can't be bought, bargained or reasoned with. Some people enjoy the suffering of other people purely because of what it is and for no other deep reasons beyond that.

Some people, quite simply, are the monsters little children think are under the bed.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the study seems to be saying fault lies with the victims of bullying. Imagine the study was a bit different and instead of blaming the victims of bullying it blamed a different sort of victim...

Studies Reveal Why Women Get Beaten and Raped

Women who get beaten and raped by men may be more likely to have problems in other parts of their lives, past studies have shown. And now researchers have found at least three factors in a woman's behavior that can lead to being violently abused.

The factors involve a woman's inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from men, as well as inability to listen and not knowing when to shut her mouth.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Millennium]

This, more or less. Blaming the victim only keeps the cycle going.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Le Marteau]

> And other kids are dicks because that's how you establish hierarchy. A lot of bullying is by lower-end youngsters terrified of becoming bottom themselves, and thus the main target

Some people, young and old, play the role of what I like to call the "sheepdog". They can't stand it when someone does not behave in ways society expects.

For whatever reason, they look for those that stray from the herd, and give them a bark to get them back in line.

Non-conformists know exactly what I mean.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the article just aid. The article just told you that the reason kids are bullied is because they have no social skills. It's not the bully's fault. It's the kid being bullied who is to blame. Alway's the victim's fault, apparently.

Re:I could have told you that.

[j_w_d]

Bullies are scum. No 'if onlies,' no 'buts.' There's no reason why a kid with difficulty understanding social cues should spend grade school making sure an upper grade bully got fat off his lunch money. No one 'makes' a bully steal your stuff, throw tarred rocks at you or generally lurk around for a chance to otherwise make your life miserable. All understanding the social cues offers is the knowledge of whom to avoid. There's a reason so many bullies go by handles like "Chopper," "Dumbo" and "Buddy" (all ones that I knew personally) and it isn't because they're brightest bulbs in the lamp. However, my dad always said 'don't get mad, get even.' I expect that Buddy never did understand why when he stole my home work he still got D's, and I still got A's.

Re:I could have told you that.

[icebike]

But even dicks can be defused and deflected with a few social skills, a bit of verbal bantering, etc.

Most dicks want to be liked and respected but settle for being feared.

It is possible to deal this way with most bullys, but the skill set required is often something that won't be learned by the bulling target for a year or maybe two.

We keep kinds back (retain them in lower grades) for academic reasons, but seldom for social reasons. Often, I suspect, simply delaying entry into school for socially awkward kids might solve a lot of this. Either that or enroll overly aggressive kids a year ahead of time.

Age driven school enrollment is probably the root cause of much of the bully problem

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some bullies are sociopaths. Sociopaths are scum. Other bullies simply need a better social environment (including home environment).

And yes, all blame should fall squarely on the aggressor. It's a teaching mechanism. It should be nothing more, nor less.

Amusing story, though.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Gorobei]

Yep, you can fix the bullying problem in a week by ending the "blaming the victim" mentality inherent in the people in charge.

The rule is really damn simple: you don't bully anyone. If you do, you get punished.

Good elementary school administrators do not tolerate bullying.
Good high-school administrators do not tolerate bullying.
Good college administrators do not tolerate bullying.
Good bosses at firms do not tolerate bullying.

If you want to suck as an administrator, go right ahead: you make the law, but pleased don't get too upset when we slash your tires and put sugar in your gas tank. You are making the rules and judging, we vote in the only ways we can vote in this situation.

Re:I could have told you that.

[corbettw]

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, this isn't "blaming the victim". This is giving victims something that can do in their own lives to end or mitigate bullying. That isn't blame, that's empowerment.

Re:I could have told you that.

[h4rr4r]

Teaching them how to beat the shit out of the bully would be empowerment. This is just something to waste the kids time and let him think about while he is being physically abused/battered.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Moridineas]

You know, I'm not going to defend those cretinous bullies at all, but I will add that there are more than just physical bullies. Kids can be jerks. Whether they're smart, dumb, geek, jock, whatever. I've seen some pretty cruel behavior amongst geeks. Perhaps not so overt as a "give me your lunch money now!" bully, but bullying just the same.

IMHO it's part of figuring out human society. Geeks/nerds/other may like to pretend that they're beyond the social ladder and the BS of others, but it's there in other ways. By the time one is 20, it should be about all figured out (hah)

Re:I could have told you that.

[Darkness404]

The problem is with schools these days. At least when I was in high school even if you didn't throw a single punch in a fight, you still got 3 days of out of school suspension. This, of course meant nothing for the bullies (most were drooling idiots simply waiting for the day they could drop out) but of course harmed the record of bullied students. Sadly, the days where fights could happen and let things get resolved permanently has ended.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Darkness404]

Problem is, how do you know what is bullying and what is not? Its pretty easy for someone to say they were verbally "harassed" by someone and have the backing of 2 or 3 friends to bully someone. A lot of remarks can simply be taken out of context and used against someone. Problem is, bullying is mostly hearsay and very subjective. What one person considers bullying is different than another person. Plus, things are different between friends, I know that some of the remarks I say around friends could be taken to a casual observer as bullying but of course its not. Even worse is when the other person denies it but they think that somehow the "bully" has manipulated the "victim" into not talking.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Blaming the victim only keeps the cycle going.

You can piss and moan all you want about people being dicks and guess what - they will still be dicks. Its like those personal ads where the girl says things like "no jerks need reply" - like that would ever stop a jerk. The only person you have control over is yourself.

I would have KILLED for training in basic social mores and skills as a child - just rote, repetitive stuff the same as any other kind of training, so that what I did not know naturally I could at least fall back on manually learned behavior. We put kids who are slow in math and reading in classes that teach to their level - how about classes that teach social conventions and behaviorism for kids who are slow at that?

Re:I could have told you that.

[hey!]

Yes, but what you are talking about is a psychopath, not a bully. Psychopaths are, I suppose, a kind of bully, but they really ought to be treated as a special case. Thinking of all bullies as psychopaths is a bad idea, because it makes it harder to recognize and deal with garden variety bullying. Oh, my little Johnny can't be a bully, because he's not a monster. Well, the unfortunate and scary thing about human nature is that you don't have to be a monster to sometimes act like one.

Personally, and this is my own anecdotal observations, many bullies have a rather interesting common characteristic in common with their victims: vulnerability. Bullies pick on the vulnerable, which is not a behavior a secure person engages in. Bullies have a particular interest in marking somebody as being at the bottom of the social heap, because they know that's where they belong. They gain security and within limits, enhanced status by placing the weakest solidly at the bottom of the pecking order.

If you ever watch a clique, watch the dynamic between the top dog and the bottom-most one that is "in". The bottommost "in" person is nearly always the nastiest in the group toward outsiders, because he or she is hanging on by his teeth and can't afford to be displaced. The top dog can be more magnanimous, which reduces the security of the underlings and makes them more eager to please.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Onetime77]

A little help:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/quotes

Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could not agree more.

I was picked on mercilessly in my first period gym class for an entire semester my 8th grade year. To the point where I was miserable and depressed outside of school and dreaded going to school, but I never fought back because I had accepted the "fighting doesn't solve anything" BS that I have been told by teachers and other adults.

When I discovered that I had the same group of people in the same class in the same period for the next semester I realized that I really could not survive another semester, so I caught the first one of the group that I could alone and hit him until he curled up to protect himself.

The principal tried to lecture me on how I was wrong. I asked him what I should have done instead and he stopped talking and excused me.

I assumed that the rest of the group would catch me and beat me up, but none of them ever said another word to me.

Kids need to be taught to stand up for themselves. Violence should not be a person's first on only solution to problems, but there are people out there who are not going to respond to anything short of a fist in their face.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Darkness404]

Yeah because we all know we (especially as kids) are all little robots who never think anything like that... We are not all equal. Some people are dumber than others, some people look differently, some people are ugly and some aren't. Its the basis for jokes and entire societies. Anything can be taken as an insult, saying "hes black" can be taken as an insult when its a perfectly valid description.

Re:I could have told you that.

[mdarksbane]

This study is more useful in determining which kids are chosen to be bullied than it is at explaining why *someone* is bullied. It's like lions attacking a herd of antelope - the lions attack because they're lions, but which antelope gets eaten is more dependent on the antelope.

I know, personally, that I failed to get along with other children until I understood social protocols enough to run them essentially on an emulation layer. Laugh here because it's supposed to be funny, be grossed out at this because it's supposed to be gross. Eventually it became second nature, and I can make small talk and fit in with a group comfortably. Normal children develop this social ability earlier and with less process. I can see a great deal of benefit in identifying the aspects of socialization that some children fail at and trying to teach them how to fake it until they can do it naturally.

Just like in rape cases, the fact that rape is caused by the rapist does not make walking alone and drunk through a bad neighborhood at night in a slutty dress a smart idea! Taking rapists off the street helps protect society in general, but calling a cab is more likely to help you specifically.

Re:I could have told you that.

[russotto]

At least when I was in high school even if you didn't throw a single punch in a fight, you still got 3 days of out of school suspension.

Basically the same here, and that was 20 years ago. They'd recite a platitude about it taking two to fight (patently false, unless you consider the resistance of one person's face to another's punch to be "fighting back"). However, their attitude means if you do get into a fight, there's no reason NOT to fight back; you're going to be punished either way. Unfortunately most bullies aren't quite as dumb as they look and will typically pick on smaller kids and/or attack two on one or worse.

This study appears to take the usual premise that the problem lies with the victim of bullying. It also apparently assumes the victim is stupid:

Instead of lecturing with the word "should," offer options the child "could" have taken in the moment, such as: "You could have asked Emma to join you or told her you would give her the swing after your turn.

Uh, yeah, even when I was a kid I could tell when "could" meant "should". And if Emma had simply walked up behind the victim and shoved her off the swing without warning (as bullies are wont to do), this is hardly relevant.

In any human group, there's going to be dominant ones, and there's going to be outcasts. If you're not strong enough to be dominant and don't fit with the followers, you'll be an outcast.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is, battered women can legally leave their relationships, and there are tons of safe havens for battered women. Children are legally obligated to stay in school, and there are no safe havens for them. This goes 10x for bullied boys, since males are expected to look after themselves.

Re:I could have told you that.

[spyder-implee]

Normally I can't stand this macho bs but in this case you blokes are exactly 100% goddamn right. Stand up to one bully (as hard as it may be) & even if you do get your ass whooped, your problems will pretty much disappear. I think it's because bullies would rather pick an easy target that wont fight back.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Trillian_1138]

I'm undoing moderation to post this, but I think your post is worth replying to.

Of course, suggesting that people in general, and women in particular, choose to ignore hints, cues, and clues that they are in danger isn't going to win any friends or respect. Especially among the women's rights activists.

Here's the thing: you're right, people who are the subject of violence can often (although certainly not always) do things to avoid being placed in a situation where violence is the end result. Pick up on the social cues bullies give off. Avoid dangerous streets or walking home alone. Don't wear such provocative clothing. And I say all that as a liberal, feminist, lesbian, intellectual, liberal arts major. That list could go on, but suffice it to say I am exactly the demographic who might be expected to dismiss or disagree with you, point blank. (And, indeed, I'm about to disagree with you. But I wanted to note that I don't totally disagree with you.)

Because you're also right that saying so won't win you points among many women's rights circles. And here's why: the ultimate responsibility for wrongdoing lies with the one committing the immoral act.

Bullies are responsible for bullying. Thieves are responsible for theft. Rapists are responsible for rape. Murderers are responsible for murder.

The point the grandparent was making was that there is a fine line between acknowledging ways to reduce one's risk and crossing over into victim-blaming. Likewise, it's really easy to leap from "kids can take specific actions to lesson the chance of being bullied" to "any child who was being bullied must have not taken proper action to avoid it!" And I believe that your argument is drifting in that direction

Had you stuck with saying that "people in general sometimes make poor decisions, which in turn can contribute to their being the victims of others" I wouldn't disagree for a second. But in your phrasing, you imply that "people in general, and women in particular" are all making these choices that result in bad things happening to them. Because, apparently, no child has ever been bullied, even though he did everything 'right.' No one has ever been walking home with a group of friends, in a well-lit area, not late at night, and still been mugged. No woman has had the poor misfortune of being assaulted or raped simply because of bad luck.

But even if that weren't the case - even if people were only bullied or raped after exhibiting clear, identifiable, preventable behavior - it still wouldn't excuse bullying, rape, or victim-blaming!

Again, I agree that people can often take steps to lesson their chances of being victims.

But ultimately, bullies cause bullying. Rapists cause rape.

-Trillian

Re:I could have told you that.

[psithurism]

this study is bs. some kids like myself late 80s mid 90s back when being computer smart = nerd would of course get me targeted by bully's.. not because i lacked any social factor but because rather then be a jock and fit in i kerned electronics.. of course a led pipe later the bully's knew not to mess with me.

Yeah, I was smarter and better looking than all the other kids too. Thats why I got bullied, because I was too awesome. I have no possible defects so that could not have contributed. Nope, I was just too awesome.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Ihmhi]

It doesn't, though. A lot of schools have adopted a "Zero tolerance" policy - part of which is your kid will get suspended for being in a fight.

Yes, I said *being* in a fight. If your kid tries to defend himself and gets his ass whupped, he gets suspended even if he weren't the aggressor. Both kids get suspended.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Ihmhi]

It's a good thing there aren't any women on Slashdot, or you might have ended up getting downmodded...

Re:I could have told you that.

[ajlisows]

I think you'd have to be a pretty big idiot to have a hard time spotting the difference between harsh interaction between friends and outright bullying. My friends and I said some mean shit to each other (and still do!) but the person on the receiving end isn't usually cowering, cringing or crying. Not to mention the fact that any decent teacher/administrator is going to have a good idea of what kids consider each other friends. That kid kneeling down in the mud crying in front of the bigger kid? He is getting bullied. Those two kids wrestling around in the mud and putting each other in headlocks, while occasionally laughing and smiling? Friends. That kid that just made that other kid cry by telling him that he is a fucking small dicked retard that nobody likes? Bullying. Those two kids exchanging "Yo momma so fat" jabs....friends. In high school, even when I didn't know the people involved, it was always pretty damn obvious.

Re:I could have told you that.

[novium]

Those kind of tactics don't work very well when it's more passive-aggressive bullying, like the shit middle school girls pull (you'd not believe me if I told you.) Simply lashing out puts the victim in an even weaker position- they might as well tattoo "even more vulnerable" on their foreheads because it is proof that the bullying is successful. And in those kind of circumstances, the victims aren't even necessarily the outcast, the weirdo, the new kid. It's extremely political but also seemingly random (though my theory is that it tends to be directed at whoever isn't showing the insecurity of the week.)

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you're still a virgin with a 2 inch penis.

Re:I could have told you that.

[StrategicIrony]

And the simple lesson here is:

bullying tends to be human nature, not some isolated behavior of socially ignorant cretens.

Re:I could have told you that.

[renoX]

I wonder why this was moderated insightful??

A sample of one is enough for you to be sure that dogs are always right when they don't like someone??
You're not very rationnal here..

Re:I could have told you that.

[n dot l]

This study appears to take the usual premise that the problem lies with the victim of bullying.

That wasn't my reading of it. The link they made between social rejection and bullying was more along the lines of, "Mediocre drivers are at greater risk of being in an automotive accident." Pointing out that a better driver might have dodged someone running a red light isn't an argument for the driver's innocence. Nor is pointing out that socially adept people can better avoid confrontations an argument for the innocence of bullies.

And if Emma had simply walked up behind the victim and shoved her off the swing without warning (as bullies are wont to do), this is hardly relevant.

Who says it's Emma you need to win over as a friend? I agree that their five easy steps are bullshit for small children, but Emma's antisocial behavior becomes irrelevant if you can win enough popularity to put yourself out of her reach. (You have noticed how most bullies pick on isolated kids, and not on the popular ones who've got lots of friends to back them up, right?)

In any human group, there's going to be dominant ones, and there's going to be outcasts. If you're not strong enough to be dominant and don't fit with the followers, you'll be an outcast.

Yup. Be one, or get on one's good side. That's good advice for life, not just for school. And the ones inside the social web tend to be a lot more dominant than the bullies (who are usually semi-outcasts themselves). But you won't get to them unless you work out your self esteem issues and learn to follow along with all the little social conventions (TFA does focus on kids who are socially rejected in general, noting that bullying is just one thing that social isolation puts you at greater risk of - and again I'm wondering if I read the same article as everybody else).

Re:I could have told you that.

[Alex Belits]

I'm pretty sure there is a strong fundamental need to establish dominance.

You, sir, are an idiot.

People (and animals) have a drive to achieve dominance, however evolution developed it to be just strong enough to make sure that positions of power are not occupied by individuals vastly inferior to the rest of the group. Make it slightly higher, and the amount of infighting will destroy the group from the inside before environment and enemies will get to it. Make is slightly lower, and packs/tribes/... will be led by leaders incapable of making reasonable decisions, communicating with the rest of the group and organizing common activities.

The culture of modern American society already elevated this competitiveness to dangerous levels, and this is why you are being led by sociopaths. Telling people that they "need" to dominate others, plays exactly into the hands of those sick leaders -- it imposes pathological behavior onto the rest of society, and makes it impossible to recognize the disease in those who have it.

Re:I could have told you that.

[jimicus]

True story: Back when I was at school, there was one kid (obviously been held back a year or two) who tried to intimidate everyone new. You know the form: stand about 6 inches away from your face, take a very aggressive tone just because you had the bad manners to be in the same room as him.

The previous school I had been at, I'd had it about ten times worse. So I just stood my ground and said "Or what?". (In truth, I was pretty nervous, but I tried not to show that)

He didn't have a clue what to do. He actually shrank back! Never did get any serious hassle from him.

Of course, there's a risk. There's a risk that he'd have beaten the shit out of me instead - something which he would easily have been capable of. But IME few who go for hassling verbally go in for hitting - and those who do go in for hitting don't generally bother with long elaborate warnings.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Vintermann]

This is a very good point, and bonus points for a reasonable reply to a less-than-reasonable post.

I suspect (but this I haven't studied, unlike bullying) that it is with adult abuse (misogynistic, homophobic, whatever) as with bullying: There may be steps you can take to reduce your chances of being the victim, but then the perpetrator will just find another victim. If there were no flamboyant drag queens, violent homophobes would just target someone they thought looked a little effeminate instead. If you dressed inconspicuously, your odds of being targeted by violent misogynists might be reduced, but the limits for what would be considered inconspicuous would also move slightly. No net change.

The initiators must be targeted, in adult abuse as in bullying.

Re:I could have told you that.

[malkavian]

Ok, I think the broken teeth from having the face smashed into a wall, the scars on the forehead from having a half brick thrown at me, and the scars on my torso and arms from sharp objects (broken glass, usually) used to slice me count as bullying.
My social skills were fine. I could pick up on the "non verbal cues" very accurately, and to this day, I'm considered highly adept at that.
Basically, this research is saying "We'll find ways to make sure you follow the crowd", rather than being a little different (hey, I read Lord of the Rings at 5 years old, and loved physics and cosmology; yes, I was "different").
What happened with all this bullying? Well, the do gooders simply said "You have to understand them; they come from a deprived background. They're having a hard time at home".
Bzzt. Wrong answer. This attitude got me a nervous breakdown by the time I was 11 amidst all the school's hand wringing over how they could improve the lot of a bunch of yobs who wanted to do nothing more than talk about football all day, and beat up anyone who didn't want to do that.

Interestingly, I once had a client who'd worked out a way to pretty much cut bullying out. He was an explorer, who'd settled for a while in England and set up a company. This company used the knowledge he'd picked up across a goodly many expeditions, and allowed him to set up a whole host of challenges in 'adventure grounds', so there were the rope bridges, rope climbs, climbing walls etc; all the stuff to challenge the physically oriented kids, who went out and proved how physically gifted they were, and got real respect for achieving something. Places that contracted him to install the grounds had an 80%+ reduction in bullying across the board, and classroom results had a marked improvement.
However, in the early 2000s, Health and Safety got their teeth into this, and said the ground were "too risky", and disallowed further installations, while shooting up the insurance premiums on schools that had them. End result, the grounds were removed from places that had them, bullying went up and grades went down. But it was cheaper.

There are those that bully because they need to prove themselves, and grounds like that will cater to them. And there are those that bully because they're nasty. Those need to be weeded out and taught hard lessons early.
It is NOT due to some kid not picking up on non-verbal clues. We pride ourselves on being an enlightened and accepting society, so why is it that some kid who may be far brighter than the rest (I've noticed that those tend to act and perceive the world in a different way) needs to suddenly understand the ways of kids far less enlightened? Why not hold the lowest denominator to higher standards?

Re:I could have told you that.

[metrix007]

Psychopaths are not scum at all. In fact, the same metric cannot even be applied - people with a conscious who do shitty things are scum because they understand the negative emotions their actions cause. Psychopaths genuinely can't feel empathy or relate. This doesnt make them all instantly scum, as many will still know enough that it is consciously wrong and stop from doing it.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Anonymous Coward]

the ultimate responsibility for wrongdoing lies with the one committing the immoral act.

The victim has the will to stop the abuse but lacks the power, the abuser has the power but lacks the will to stop.

Until such time as the abusers of the world agree to stop voluntarily (only a portion will ever do so) the other available response is to empower the victim. Whether your chosen method of empowerment is more cautious behaviour, increased social skills, improved/legal/justice system response or the personal carry of firearms I leave to your judgement. If you do nothing, though, you are relying on people who have chosen evil to instead do good, a very risky proposition.

Re:I could have told you that.

[Moryath]

Yep.

Been through that one. That was the real one that taught me school administrators are fucking morons.

What does such a policy accomplish? NOTHING. It basically becomes a weapon for the bullies. Now, not only do they get to threaten the kid with beating them up, the secondary threat of missing out on tests and getting in trouble that way comes with it. The bullies in my school system didn't give two shits whether they were suspended or not, they were already failing.

If your kid tries to defend himself

It didn't matter what the kid. Someone blindsides him into a wall and he just curls into a ball and cries for help, he STILL got suspended for the same length of time as the bully. Might as well fight back, for all the good it's going to do.

Re:I could have told you that.

[KillaBeave]

Yes the aggressor is to blame, but I truly believe that kids should be taught to stand up to bullies. The rule in my house was the good 'ole standard "Boy you never start a fight, but always finish it." Call it machismo BS if you will, but aggression is the only thing these thick-headed sociopaths will understand. Try to take my lunch money, I bloody your nose. Sure I get sent to the office right along with you, maybe I even spend a day or two at home ... but you sure will think twice about taking MY lunch money again. Take the poor sap's whose parents tell him to never retaliate.

I watched this very thing happen as I grew up. My younger brother was very small for his age, my cousin was a giant and they were in the same grade. My cousin's parents were very strict with a "no fighting back, tell the teachers" policy, mainly because he was so big and strong. My dad gave my brother the same rule I had. My cousin was picked on and bullied constantly, pleading with the teachers who try to stop it, but they're not always around. My brother spent a few days at home, but didn't have near the trouble.

In a perfect world, telling the appropriate authorities would solve your problems. However, the world isn't perfect and sometimes you've got to solve your problems for yourself.

Re:I could have told you that.

[kenp2002]

...

Bullies are responsible for bullying. Thieves are responsible for theft. Rapists are responsible for rape. Murderers are responsible for murder.

The point the grandparent was making was that there is a fine line between acknowledging ways to reduce one's risk and crossing over into victim-blaming. Likewise, it's really easy to leap from "kids can take specific actions to lessen the chance of being bullied" to "any child who was being bullied must have not taken proper action to avoid it!" ...

-Trillian

While I largely agree the logic in me must protest to a degree with some extreme examples to frame a reference:

A guy dresses up in a KKK outfit and walks through Harlem. He gets his ass beat. Sure his attackers are to blame, but at what point as a society do we recognize he contributed, antagonized, etc. At some point in life we invite disaster upon ourselves. At what point in a society to we hold people accountable for inviting disaster upon themselves?

A guy is burning 200 candles in a bedroom in his apartment when his door bell rings. He goes to answer the door but the draft from opening the door draws a curtain into the flame, the whole apartment burns down. He didn't intend to burn the apartment down but is charge and convicted of "criminal negligence." Oddly though the person ringing the door bell is not. We do hold people accountable for inviting disaster in a variety of circumstances.

Now to the "I dress like a whore and somehow I am surprised I am treated like a whore" situations. Now while I and no saine person would suggest that people would invite rape, lets take it back a few steps. If a woman is dressed in a slutty fashion (Lets say Halloween time) and she goes to a party. She comes home and complains to her friends that "every pig was just staring at me all night like I was a piece of meat". Now the question is, at what point do we hold ourselves accountable for the reactions of others? The study I think was just trying to find out what issues of the victim's behavior "invites disaster".

We as people do have a responsibility for our own safety which government largely has tried to abolish. Don't defend yourself, just wait for some cops to show up 2 hours later. It's not your fault it is societies fault, etc.

Most can agree that "Personal Responsibility" has been under attack for at least the last 30 years. At some point depending on the circumstances we have to look at the behavior of the victims to understand what "invites disaster". It probably isn't a great idea to dress like a hooker and walk through the worst part of town at 3 am. Common sense says, "your going to get raped" doing that. Obviously it isn't the victims fault they got raped; BUT the victim IS A MORON and a card carrying member of the Idiocracy. The fact they end up the victim I guess is the darwinian punishment for being an idiot as harsh as is it. Now back to bulling.

Thieves are responsible for theft

Yes but you have a lock on your door for a reason. If you leave it unlocked and get robbed you, the victim, made yourself the more desirable target versus someone without a locked door. If you live in a crappy neighborhood you are also more likely to get robbed. People would like to know "What can I do to get robbed less" and that is what I think there were trying to explain in the context of bullies.

Rapists are responsible for rape

Yes but again dressing like a hooker walking down University Ave. alone at 3 AM isn't going to help keep you safe

Bullies are responsible for bullying

Yes but walking your D&D playing, "I enjoy John Tesh", Glee Club member ass into the locker room isn't going to improve your chances either.

Crime or Anti-Social behavior is not a simple Me vs. You concept. The word SOCIAL gets glossed over. The inability to get along is a "We" issue

Re:I could have told you that.

[init100]

It turned out he was constantly bullied by one kid because he was gay. ... Why did he hate him so much?

My gut feeling? Because the bully was insecure about his own sexuality. By lashing out and abusing someone who is openly gay, he might have been able to convince himself that he was not gay himself, regardless of whether this was the case or not.

Re:I could have told you that.

[FoolishOwl]

I never understand this advice. In my experience, bullies gather in packs, and single out individual targets. They *love* it when their victims try to resist them, because then they feel justified in further escalating the violence.

I remember several occasions when I tried to push a bully away, and ending up lying on the ground, covering my face, while half a dozen kids were kicking me. I gave up fighting back and learned to hide. I think that's how I survived -- literally.

Just don't go to far..

[Anrego]

It really is an under-addressed public health issue

I really hope they don't _over_ address it (WAIT! this is a serious comment!).

I'm really glad to see them taking a "help the kids function in the real world" vice the traditional "turn schools into a happy fantasy world" approach.

At the same time, learning to deal with these kind of challenges on your own is important. Obviously there are lots of cases where things get out of hand, and as the article describes, kids grow up with all sorts of problems as a result.

I think the assumption here is that you are giving the kid a push in the right direction.. rather than hand holding.. which might work. When you start doing the latter.. I think you just serve to isolate the kid more (classic example.. when a teacher essentially forces a group to include someone).

Most kids are so desperate to have friends, they just jump on board

Personally I think this hints at the root of the problem... self esteem.

It's cliche.. but "just be yourself" works. If you're a geek.. be a geek.. you'll fit in somewhere.

Re:Just don't go to far..

[Opportunist]

It's cliche.. but "just be yourself" works. If you're a geek.. be a geek.. you'll fit in somewhere.

Nope. Sorry, but it does not work. Delude yourself all you want, but if you have kids, please try to review your view. Be yourself and you'll fit in. Ignore the bullies and they get bored eventually. I know those words well. I was told them myself. They have no roots in reality, though. They're the feelgood words parents use to delude themselves and their kids in the vain hope that they can wish the problem away.

You cannot. Sorry.

From the Article

[timeOday]

"The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans"

Admit it.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of bologna is this? Talk about blaming the victim.

They'd have been better off spending those research dollars trying to figure out how to properly socialize the goddamned bullies, not their victims ... who are often intelligent, sensitive individuals not in need of "socialization".

Senator Proxmire, where are you when we need you.

Re:I was bullied constantly until...

[QuantumG]

First year in high school I was bullied, struck back, and then was labeled as a hot head. Every other hot head considered me one of them and assumed the only way to solve disagreements with me was with violence. It took a while to shake that.

Just a reminder that fighting back has its own consequences.

Asking for it

[serps]

Wow, that article really has a 'blame the victim' mentality, with the coda "and here's why".

The article even ends with the appeasement of "what can you change about the way you act to avoid being bullied"

Just like Battered Wife Syndrome, bullying is something that, ultimately, is the fault of the aggressor. Appeasement is not the solution.

Re:Asking for it

[Xeno man]

I don't understand why everyone is just saying this article is just a blame the victim story. It looks to be more like a understanding the victim. Everything has more than one approach so why just focus on bullies, look at the bullied and maybe help them too.

Lets use a car analogy, Slashdot likes that.

Your in your car sitting at a red light waiting. The light turns green so you go, but half way through the intersection some fucker that was trying to beat his red light now runs the red and t-bones you. Now who what at fault? That's easy, the other guy. Your the victim in this scenario. You had the complete right of way, BUT if you the "victim" took a bit of self responsibility and maybe looked both ways before going you might have noticed the other guy wasn't stopping and avoided the whole thing. You would still have your car, avoided any injuries, recovery time and possible deaths. I'm not faulting you for the accident it self but for not being a better driver.

The same for the article it self, it points out that there are reasons that specif children get picked on and if you can identify them you can help them become better people and in doing so they get along with others better and get picked on less. Now kids are still going to get picked on because some bullies are just jerks, just like you can be a perfect driver that does everything right and more and some fucker still plows into you, but were not analyzing that side of the coin here.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the article but the study it self has some merit. But then again, maybe I'm just arguing with a thousand bullied nerds that have deep emotional scars that won't allow them to believe for a moment that they did anything to bring on a bullies wrath.

Let me translate

[deglr6328]

Let me translate the article for you so you don't have to waste time on its bullshit: bullied kids are responsible for their own torment and it's really their job to stop it from happening. --> F-you Clark McKown. Right in the ear.

Awesome, Blame the victim

[h4rr4r]

In other news,

Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged
The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from muggers.

Studies Reveal Why People Get Prison Raped
The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from rapists.

Studies Reveal Why People Get Prison Murdered
The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from murderers.

Re:Awesome, Blame the victim

[capologist]

Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from muggers.

A better analogy would be, "Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged: The factors involve walking alone through dark alleys in crime-ridden neighborhoods." Identifying and addressing factors that increase risk of being mugged doesn't exonerate the mugger, it just makes you less likely to get mugged. That's all this is. It isn't "blaming the victim" like so many people are shouting. It's simply a matter of identifying factors that increase the risk of becoming a victim and addressing those factors in order to reduce such risks. I only wish this study had been done 40 years ago. I have Asperger's Syndrome (only recently diagnosed) and was bullied a lot as a kid. If my parents had been armed with the information in this study, maybe I would have been bullied less.

Re:Awesome, Blame the victim

[hey!]

Seriously, though, how you act makes a huge difference to how likely you are to be mugged. It's actually quite useful knowledge: the places to avoid, how to act if you're in a strange place, how to react when potential muggers interact with you to gauge how safe a target you are, what to do if you are being mugged (e.g., never believe what a mugger says when he tries to get you to do something, especially if it involves going someplace where he'll find more private).

It's fine to say "muggers are bad people" -- we know they are. But that doesn't get you far in the area of self-protection. "Make all the people in the world good" is not a viable strategy.

Re:I was bullied constantly until...

[timmarhy]

+1

I was never really bullied because i fought back early on, plus i'm a beefy guy to begin with so inspite of me being into computers no one bothered me. later in high school i put my skills to use making home brew, and i became very popular (suprise suprise).

I think the number one thing teachers and parents need to do is let kids fight their own damn battles. if jnr gets bullied, let him give the kid a black eye. it also gives the bully a taste of what will happen later in life if you insist on picking on people. all this passive agressive shit where your only allowed to express yourself according to someone elses rules is bullcrap.

I know if my kids were getting picked on at school i wouldn't sit down and tell them to care and share, i send them to boxing lessons and tell them to defend themselfs. people taking shit is the result of this passive nonsense people have been bred on for the last 20 years.

The Comments are Really Interesting

[mosb1000]

So many people are out there saying "no, it's not the victim's fault, don't blame the victim" but they miss the entire point. People have always tried to end bullying by punishing the bullies, but it has never been an effective way to solve the problem. If anything, it just makes the bully more likely to be abusive. This article is discussing why some are bullied and rejected while others aren't. And it goes to the heart of what can be done, which is teaching social skills. The punishment system doesn't work.

Re:The Comments are Really Interesting

[couchslug]

"People have always tried to end bullying by punishing the bullies, but it has never been an effective way to solve the problem."

Most bullies go unpunished, so let's not assert punishment is ineffective when it is generally absent.

Re:The Comments are Really Interesting

[h4rr4r]

Really? Because never in my childhood was a bully ever punished. Not once. The only time I can recall a bully going to the principals office was after I fought back. Since I won the altercation I was in trouble and he was the victim, nevermind that he started it.

I see

[pydev]

<sarcasm>Who would have guessed? Those poor bullies are really the victims of the kids they beat up, because the kids being beaten up are practically asking the bullies to commit violence against them. I mean, obviously, if anybody doesn't want to conform to social norms or has interests other than those that the popular kids have, they are abnormal and hence need to be cured!</sarcasm>

Re:I was bullied constantly until...

[Idiomatick]

Words of a coward :/

Fighting has little to NOTHING to do with who is tough/bigger/stronger. If you are remotely physically fit even if the guy is twice your size. You can win in a fight. Fights have EVERYTHING to do with who is willing to put it out there. If you can bite back the pain of a punch, even if you are smaller you can inflict damage back. And the one that wins is the one that is willing to continue. Bullies want to show dominance, they want to show how tough they are to others. But they rarely are willing to take an elbow to the throat for it.

not that it is bad that you stood up for yourself

[circletimessquare]

but i take exception with a phrase in your last sentence

"good to know that you are in control"

your actions do not sound like someone in control. in fact, you were out of control. you say so yourself

"It felt empowering afterward but at the time I was too terrified horrified and enraged to notice"

again i'm glad you stood up for yourself, but recognize that this temporary rage of yours was not really a good thing to be driven to. absolutely necessary, yes, but not good. not everything we are driven and compelled to do in this life are good actions we should be happy happened. not that i see you taking joy in the event, but there are others out there who might have enjoyed it

as an allegory, it is entirely appropriate and reasonable to kill someone entering your house in the dead of night: you have no idea what his intentions are, and they're obviously not good. however, a truly moral person takes no sense of joy in the unfortunately necessary action, only sadness

when you take pleasure in the infliction of pain on others, no matter the context or scenario, you begin to become the bully you are fighting

i'm not saying you took such joy, but i'm merely using your scenario as a way to jump off and make a deeper point here

Let's blame the victim!

[lanner]

Uh, it's pretty clear to me that there is an overtone in this article that it's victim's fault that they are not well liked or have social problems.

While I accept that this may be true in some cases, and a contributing factor in many instances, it's shocking and abhorrent to me that someone might suggest that it's the victim's fault that they get physically assaulted, mentally abused, pressured to do drugs, etc.

The common attribute to bullying is bullies. They are the source of the problem (as often a single link in a chain of abuse) and it would be wise to focus on identifying, exposing, and properly reacting to their abusive behavior against others.

I don't want to attack the entire study based on my perception of this article, and I'll support that having poor social skills can contribute to the likelihood of being a bully victim, but WTF?

Re:Let's blame the victim!

[The Wooden Badger]

I think that you are missing the point of the article. If there is a certain set of traits that bullys prey on, isn't it wise to know what those traits are and then arm kids with those traits with the skills they need to not be a victim?

Re:Let's blame the victim!

[johncadengo]

The common attribute to bullying is bullies. They are the source of the problem (as often a single link in a chain of abuse) and it would be wise to focus on identifying, exposing, and properly reacting to their abusive behavior against others.

I don't want to attack the entire study based on my perception of this article, and I'll support that having poor social skills can contribute to the likelihood of being a bully victim, but WTF?

Want to know my guess? A bully wrote this article.

Re:not that it is bad that you stood up for yourse

[couchslug]

"when you take pleasure in the infliction of pain on others, no matter the context or scenario, you begin to become the bully you are fighting"

Just revenge isn't necessarily "bullying". There is no reason NOT to enjoy punishing someone who has worked hard to deserve it, and if more bullies were rewarded with on-the=spot correction they would be less likely to go on bullying for years.

"a truly moral person takes no sense of joy in the unfortunately necessary action, only sadness"

According to your morals, which like ALL morals, are subjective. Not all of us crave to bathe in guilt for doing what is right, and many can sleep well after fighting a just fight.

you are in danger

[circletimessquare]

of becoming the monster you fight

and you don't even see it

the quote is in the wrong context

[circletimessquare]

you are not describing western culture, or judeochristian culture, or american culture, or southern culture, or whatever you think are describing

you are describing human nature. its fundamental human psychology that is in play here, not the "mythology" of one group

there is not a society that has ever existed on this planet, or will ever exist, that the quote above does not apply to

know human nature for what it is: the good, the bad, and the ugly (yes, i intended that ;-). don't hold one culture or society guilty for what all societies and cultures are guilty of

Re:Help the victims

[Runaway1956]

("You're here and you're smaller than me so you're gonna get beat up")

Believe me, I've been there. The solution? Accept that you are going to get beaten up, then set out to make the experience as painful as possible for the guy beating up on you. Yeah, he hammered you to a pulp - but if you managed to get in one good shot and broke his nose, he will never come back for more. In fact, the fight ended when the pain speared from his nose into his pea sized brain. Never give up, and never stop fighting, and even the densest of bullies will come to understand that you're not an easy target.

Re:why do you think it is valid

[lawpoop]

to say that the response on a community level has any meaning for the psychology of the individual

Those members of the community aren't themselves individuals? The parents, siblings, friends, and other relatives of the victims had no 'psychology' in response to their loved ones being murdered?

are the amish robots? they feel no emotion?

Obviously not -- love, forgiveness and empathy are very strong and powerful emotions.

culture modifies basic human psychology. but human psychology never changes

Perhaps the situation is the reverse of what you propose. Perhaps a culture of sacred violence has modified the basic human psychology of love, empathy and forgiveness. Perhaps both feelings of revenge and forgiveness are inherent in human psychology, neither one being more 'natural' or 'artificial' than the other. I don't see any convincing evidence either way to show which is more basic to human nature -- revenge or forgiveness, but I see plenty of evidence of both happening. From my point of view, it's up to you to provide evidence of why revenge should be considered more 'basic'. I see revenge and forgiveness as universal. For every revenge anecdote you can find, I can find a forgiveness anecdote.

Why do you think it's invalid?

In the real world...

[voss]

People who beat up other people GO TO JAIL. They do not get peer mediation, they dont get 3 day suspensions.
Police do not tell victims "Suck it up, be a man, stop living in a fantasy world", they arrest the thug and put him in jail
for an extended period of time. They do not force victims to stay in proximity with their perpetrators.

We do not tolerate it when husbands batter wives and when parents batter children, we dont allow thugs to extort money from people
on city streets or to beat up people as a means of social dominance. Why do we tolerate physical violence by peers?

Re:I was bullied constantly until...

[RightwingNutjob]

I think the civilized advice to people who refuse to fight is to pray to whatever god(s) you believe in that there are enough otherwise good-natured people around you who don't refuse to fight and will protect you. Otherwise, you're SOL.

Re:From the article: a summary

[dcollins]

"The article fails to address other factors like: What about the bully kid? Why does he/she does that? How some bullies are able to form mobs? Why not all kids behave like bullies when in contact with such child?"

But, that would involve surveying and talking to the bullies, and come on, those guys are scary. Our researchers have been found to much prefer doing studies on the submissive compliant kids, for some reason.

long term consequences...

[nerdyalien]

unfortunately, I don't have any solutions with me. But I can tell you some long term consequences based on my experience.

I was brought up in south-asia in a co-ed public school. Public schools are a mix of all the social classes and it is still a habit of 3rd world country men to look down each other on minor nuances.

I was a bully victim throughout my school years (and to a certain extent in my college years.. but more towards 'work-wise bullying'). Definitely I didn't have the physique to fight back. So I had to submit it to survive school years as changing schools is not the solution for everything. As a consequence, I never had a big circle of friends in school. And I try to forget most of my school years and ppl I met there.

Most of my school time, I spent on home work and other stuff (including reading, thinking stuff up) while rest are having merry time in the school yard. But nevertheless, I met handful of good guys (mostly nerds), who ended up being my long term friends/confidantes.

But I really got to know I'm having a serious issue, only after I entered to college. I spent 4 years there without attending a single dorm party, going to college prom or road trips. I just didn't fit into people. I had hard time understanding ppl and only time I understood them was.. when they are ganging up to bully me.

Same thing with romantic stuff. Its a shame, even educated in a co-ed school, I never went on a date in my entire life (and not to mention, no first time yet). Simply because, I don't know how to approach females and talk to them nor have the confidence. Back in school days, when I approached a girl, there are herds of ppl shouting/yelling nasty stuff.... and to avoid that harassment, I opt not to talk with girls.

Moreover, I have issues approaching strangers and talking with them. And I'm worst in terms of bargaining things and manipulating situation for my advantage. No matter how much I try to fit into social groups, I always get kicked out.

Even in my office, I tend to limit my communication to e-mails/IMs. Even thought other staffers having great non-work bonds.. I only have professional relationships.. that's that.

If I didn't get bullied.. I would've interact with more ppl and probably complete 10,000 hours in social relationship training, hence I would've done much better in things I came across after school years. Plainly, I'm having hard time in terms of communicating with people, that pretty much closes most of the life experiences. In long run, all this have costed me quite badly. And yes, I agree with what the article explains.

Okay, let's break this down...

[uglyMood]

On the one hand, bullies rarely if ever make a positive contribution to society. They are irrationally violent towards the kids that are smarter, not as socially developed, less physically imposing, and have odd interests.

On the other hand, the intelligent, awkward runts with unusual obsessions are pretty much responsible for every every bit of human progress since the invention of fire.

Guess which group of people the article says must alter its behavior?

Re:The short answer.

[Xaemyl]

Yeah. Hit the bully in the mouth who has a knife, or a gun. See how well that works out.

Re:I was bullied constantly until...

[catsidhe]

Words of someone who got lucky.

So it worked for you. Huzzah.

How many other kids do you think tried that sort of thing, and got seven kinds of shit beaten out of them? And then got it worse afterwards for daring to stand up?

What happens when you get someone who is willing to risk an elbow to the throat? And/or is simply better than you at head-kicking?

How about you try to think of a way of addressing this problem which doesn't hold the victim responsible for their own victimisation?

It's the rejecting part that matters

[xant]

I dunno, kinda seems like you didn't read the article. It leads with "The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans", and keeps that chord going throughout. A person who is rejected and has no friends is unhappy, whether he's bullied or not, and the focus in the article is rightly on that issue.

If you focus on that part of the message, you see that there is indeed a problem that originates in the suffering child. You can't divide the world into "bullies" and "non-bullies" any more. It's "those who reject him" and "those who don't reject him", and for the kid suffering with no friends, nearly everyone is in the second group. The normative behavior is to reject as alien those who do not respond to social cues. Will you blame the whole world for behaving normally, or try to teach the suffering kid how to break through the perception barrier and get accepted?

Regarding bullies: of course the bully's behavior is non-normative, and needs correction, but that's really the lesser part of the suffering of the lonely child. The greater part is the inability to make friends.

Re:Because they can be bullied

[EvolutionsPeak]

Nonsense. Their initially preferred targets are almost always smaller/weaker than they are.

Which TFA did you read?

[n dot l]

The TFA I read discussed social rejection, and noted that bullies often focus on the socially rejected. This isn't about using your social skills to charm the bully (lol), it's about using them to get friends and hoist yourself out of the immediate target population, or at least get yourself on a better footing to fight back (most bullies have their own social issues - if you can sort yours out that's an automatic advantage).

I've been bullied. I watched other kids get bullied too. I got rid of my bullies by not behaving like the other victims, not by beating anybody up (as if I could). I realized that the only targets were people who were isolated from the main social group and unwilling to fight back (in most cases by their own low self-esteem) and made an effort to not be one of them. I learned to control my emotions so I could think clearly in social situations that weren't going how I wanted. I learned to actually pay attention and read other people's body language properly. I learned the social rules. I made friends outside my usual circle.

The guys that spent 5 minutes between classes laughing at me in the halls every day (not hardcore bullying but hardly pleasant, I assure you)? Most of them weren't being sarcastic or mean like I thought. They were confused by how incongruously I acted. I was the one that was too stupid to read their expressions correctly. Once I clued in, I stopped escalating simple misunderstandings (I actually thought I was sticking up for myself) and quickly made friends with many of them. I had no trouble ignoring the few asshole opportunists (most of who were doing it due to their own self esteem issues) in the lot who were jumping in with a nasty quip just because they saw they had a chance to get a laugh at my expense. Over the next few weeks I got rid of a good two thirds of the grief I'd get at school (the low grade harassment) in this way. I'd say fixing this one mistake of mine is probably where I started to really build my self-confidence.

The scary looking thug (huge muscles, tattoos, scars, rumors that he's done nasty things - seriously scary fucker) that went around threatening people into giving him free shit? The confidence I'd gained making some friends was enough to keep me calm around him. Calm enough to see his insecurity screaming through every little gesture (fucked up home life, he had a lot to be insecure about). Flat-out told him "no" when he punched me and told me to give him my CD collection. He was stunned, I don't think he'd ever seen someone calmly stand up to him before (I admit, it freaked me out afterwards - he had opened up with a punch). He wandered off as though nothing had happened and didn't bother me again.

The asshole who'd steal my shit, trip me, shove my head into my locker, heckle me in class (WTF teachers, how did that shit ever fly?), throw things at me, etc every single chance he got? I was his favorite victim until a few months after I started turning myself around. He turned out to be desperately afraid he'd lose his friends' respect if he didn't act all tough. Getting the courage to go and talk to them (his friends) and find out that they didn't really like him was the key to getting rid of him. Desperate fuckers turn out to be easy to bait, and I only had to get myself seen with his buddies regularly for a few weeks before he freaked out about them ditching him and did something stupid enough to get them to actually ditch him. He never bothered me again. I'd actually been hoping to get something out of them that I could blackmail him with, but I'm not one to complain if a problem takes care of itself.

So I disagree that TFA's conclusion is some bullshit way to avoid having to actually punish bullies. We're social creatures, and learning how to navigate the social web (rather than hovering helplessly around the edges) is definitely empowering. I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone that would just beat the shit out of a bully, but it's hardly the only way to deal with things (and I've seen a couple of guys that did that get shunned even more for being "dangerous" hotheads).

Re:not an unreasonable policy

[Dr Damage I]

Yet punishing both the victim and the aggressor remains a bad solution to this problem. It rewards the bully by punishing his (or her) victim twice: once at the hands of the bully, once at the hands of the authorities. The fact that meting out actual justice is difficult is not an excuse to discard the notion in favor of simple and brutal solutions.

Re:The bully and the outcast - a true story

[Anonymous Coward]

that's just wrong. you got revenge. you didn't solve a problem. the bully had no way to connect 'the punishment' to 'the crime'. if anything, the bully probably bullied a little harder that week to work out his frustrations.

i'm with the poster that said to pop'em in the mouth, right then and there. you might get in a fight. you might get hurt. you might get suspended. a few days of physical pain and suspension is better than numerous years of torture.

You're all a bunch of whiny loserboy nerds

[JockTroll]

You don't get it, do you? Do you need research to find out why bullies exist and why they behave the way they do?

It's actually quite simple: humans are pack animals and in any pack there's an alpha male who leads, and some wannabe who gets beaten into submission or killed. Mankind however has unwisely decided to skip the beating and killing, so the wannabes keep being wannabes.

And what does a wannabe alpha do? Lacking the skills to lead, it clings to the shreds of self-esteem it can keep and in order to maintain them, it has to reaffirm it by picking on defenceless victims and surrounding itself by lackeys who are even inferior to it in abilities and self-esteem. Of course, in order to keep the respect of those lowlives, it has to keep reasserting its make-believe superiority by picking on the aforementioned victims.

So, make no mistake: there's no way to keep a bully from being what it is. You cannot talk to them, you cannot bargain with them, you cannot reason with them. They won't stop being bullies, even when grown up. They will use different means, but that's what they are.

The only way to defeat a bully is by bursting its self-esteem bubble and causing it to lose its respect. That can only be achieved by the calculated and unrestrained use of violence on the part of the target or targets, violence that must be both physical and psychological and is to be exercised in the presence of its lackeys, which have been observed to not intervene when their leader is in obvious difficulty.

The bully must be hit, harshly, and with intent to cause harm. Bullies in the vast majority of the cases do not attack with the intention of causing lasting damage, only minor incapacitation and humiliation, but such limits must not be observed when dealing with them. The first blows must be aimed to stun and/or reduce its mobility and ability to fight back, the rest to subdue it in the fastest way possible. Ganging up is possible, because the objective is not a fair fight, but to cause the bully to lose any respect.

The attack should not take place on school grounds because misguided, feel-good policies have severely curtailed the natural tendence of human nature to self-balance via the old and effective ways of ultraviolence. Public soil is acceptable. Dark alleys or places out of the public's eye should be preferred. Normally it only takes one session to neutralize the bully, if more are needed then the second one should be way harsher and further humiliation should be contemplated. Forcing the target to run home without his pants is an option. Shitting on his face would be a bonus.

In any case, remember that bullies are like nerds: they're inferior specimen, losers. The difference is that the nerd is a loser who wants to be a loser, while the bully is a loser who wants to be a winner. Have no mercy with neither, they're not human and should not be treated as such.