Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Studies Reveal Why Kids Get Bullied and Rejected

Posted by kdawson on from the see-my-finger-see-my-thumb dept.

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."

9 of 938 comments (clear)

  1. I could have told you that. by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are kids bullied and rejected?

    Because sometimes, other kids are dicks. Next question?

    1. Re:I could have told you that. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:I could have told you that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I could have told you that. by j_w_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    4. Re:I could have told you that. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:I could have told you that. by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:I could have told you that. by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    7. Re:I could have told you that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:I was bullied constantly until... by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.