Study Shows Standing Up To Bullies Is Good For You

It will come as no surprise to anyone who's ever talked to my grandpa, but a recent study has shown that standing up to a bully is good for you. Although being bullied can be stressful and lead to depression, children who returned hostility were found more likely to develop healthy social and emotional skills. From the article: "In a study of American children aged 11 and 12, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, compared those who stood up to aggressors with those who did not. Children who returned hostility with hostility appeared to be the most mature, the researchers found. Boys who stood up to bullies and schoolyard enemies were judged more socially competent by their teachers. Girls who did the same were more popular and more admired by teachers and peers, the researchers found."

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Some children that have no deficit of mental or emotional strength are taught by their parents that retaliation is wrong, that the meek are blessed, and that they should "turn the other cheek" as Jesus taught. This is reinforced by teachers who punish both students involved in a fight if either one defends himself against the other.

It is a testament to the children's stoicism that they can accomplish this. Unfortunately for them, it looks like doing so may negatively impact their mental and emotional development (yeah correlation is not causation and all that...that's why I said "MAY").

This happened to me. My parents were evangelical nuts. They set me up to go be a victim in public schools, which I was. I have no idea what psychological ramifications that may have for me today...but I DO know that when I started training in martial arts in high school, the bullying stopped, and I never had to hit anyone (which actually kind of disappointed me, because I had a lot of anger I wanted to unleash on the next unsuspecting bully).

Re:No

[Stargoat]

I had this problem. I was on the wrestling team at a heavier but very fit weight, being a state wrestler. I was also a nerd who greatly enjoyed his computers and D&D. Being a nerd, it was of course appropriate to gleek (spit) me, push, tease mercilessly, and otherwise inflict cruelty.

One day in the 8th grade, a thug hit me on the back of the head. I turned around, headlocked him to the ground, and punched him until he was unconscious. He was an untrained baboon who didn't stand a chance. A teacher came over and broke up the fight.

Like something out of a lame Hughes movie, I was applauded when I entered the cafeteria that day. I was exceedingly popular for the next two weeks - everyone likes seeing a thug get what they deserve. I never had to fight again either, as everyone who laid a finger on me knew what would happen.

Unfortunately, I received the same punishment as the thug who hit me. This is not right. There is distinct disconnect in administration perception and the reality of the situation of what happens to the various social pariahs. The social pariahs are punished for fighting back and therefore the bullies are encouraged. Let me say this more clearly. Zero tolerance policies lead to bullying.

It is my belief that the support of bullying leads directly to situations such as those boys in Columbine. If you cannot fight back, then you must either totally submit to all indignities or rebel against hopeless odds.

There should be a physical violence outlet for the social pariahs against bullies. Bullies need to be confronted, physically, by the social pariahs. It is in the natural order of things that a whipped dog bites back eventually. It is natural and beneficial for the social pariah (and probably for the bully as well) that bullies be beaten in fights.

Prisoner's Dilemma

[dtmos]

I always felt that bullying was an iterated prisoner's dilemma situation. It's well-known that the optimum strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma is cooperate first, then tit-for-tat thereafter. In this context, "tit-for-tat" would mean fighting back.

Re:Or could it be

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

run a marathon . . . get[] nothing in return

In typical Slashdot fashion, anti-exercise trolls come out of the woodworks!

I did plenty of physical activities that damaged my body growing up and even I recognize the difference. Being opposed to getting kids to run marathons or compete in sports that are damaging is not anti-exercise. Marathons are pretty hard on the body, high impact on the joints. My cousins played basketball and several other sports and now they hobble around barely able to walk properly while not even middle aged yet. Calling opposition to marathons anti-exercise is like calling people who don't like poison ivy anti-plant people. A lot of us encourage healthy exercise while still not encouraging kids to exercise in ways that likely damage them permanently.