←back to thread

Treating bullying as everyone's problem reduces incidence in primary schools

(phys.org)
175 points PaulHoule | 4 comments | 16 Nov 24 14:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[16 Nov 24 20:20 UTC] No.42158978[source]▶
I’ve been thinking a little about this subject lately. It seems like bullying is a thing that serves the function of exacting the repressed violent desires of the social body. Who is selected for bullying is determined not primarily by the bully, but by the social group as a whole. To me this helps explain why it’s such a ubiquitous behavior; it’s a mechanism for a social group to act outside of its norms in the enforcement of its norms. To be clear, I think it’s terrible, just interesting to think about this way.
replies(7): >>42159010 #>>42159081 #>>42159419 #>>42159609 #>>42159814 #>>42160292 #>>42162737 #
1. akira2501 ◴[16 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42159814[source]▶
Game theory of bullying. Which works right up until you realize a lot of bullies have mental health issues and are probably not going to produce identical "rationalized" results to someone who isn't.
replies(1): >>42159946 #
2. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[16 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42159946[source]▶
What I said doesn’t assume the bully is some kind of rational actor playing a game. They’re more like an organ in the social body.
replies(1): >>42160005 #
3. akira2501 ◴[16 Nov 24 22:35 UTC] No.42160005[source]▶
A social body relies on signals. If the signals are not predictable then you're facing the exact same problem. You've also opened the door on a single bad signal infecting the social body and pushing towards outcomes that would not occur if that single influence was not otherwise present.

If you're going to rely on this dynamic, then you're going to have this consideration.

replies(1): >>42161115 #
4. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[17 Nov 24 01:13 UTC] No.42161115{3}[source]▶
I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t understand your critique. Is there a simpler way you could phrase it?