←back to thread

175 points PaulHoule | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] 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 #
akira2501 ◴[] 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 #
BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] 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 #
1. akira2501 ◴[] No.42160005{3}[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 #
2. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.42161115[source]
I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t understand your critique. Is there a simpler way you could phrase it?