Is Bullying Social Darwinism where the weak go to the wall ? - Discuss

pragmatic1 · 05-05-2011 08:52PM

cml387 wrote: »

If Bill Gates met a thug on the street he may very well be beaten up.
Bullying is a different thing,using your force of personality to have power over indiviuals using intimidation in whatever form will work.

No its exactly the same. In both situations there is an aggressor and a victim. One has power over the other.

Yahew · 05-05-2011 08:52PM

I think that Bill Gates is getting a hard time in the thread. There is no indication he is a bully, a successful manager doesn't have to be a bully. He can talk softly and carry a big stick ( i.e. he can fire you).

Steve Jobs seems more like the Bully.

I do think that victims should be taught to stand up for themselves - where possible. I dont think that meekness is a good trait.

ascanbe · 05-05-2011 08:57PM

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

'System' is the operative word.
This system, whether one regards it as the correct system, is a social construct that has resulted from millennia of philosophy/social evolution and has a big say in who prospers; for instance, if it wasn't for the social stigma associated with violence and the concept of law and order there would be a significantly greater chance that someone physically superior would have long ago rendered the likes of Bill Gates and Michael O'Leary incapable of profiting from their wits and particular brand of bullying.
And systems within countries are nebulous things/due to possible significant change at any given moment, that have a big impact on who does and doesn't get the opportunity to prosper.
Similarly, the system a school adopts towards bullying will have a big say on whether a person will end up a victim of it or not.
So chance/timing/events also have a big say in who 'prospers'; both in school and life. Darwinism can't be used to explain everything.
This is obviously an endlessly complex subject, though; about as complex and probably unanswerable as 'what's it all about?'

Kevin Duffy · 05-05-2011 08:58PM

Yahew wrote: »

carry a big stick ( i.e. he can fire you).
.

Which would be an expression of the power on which bullying would depend.

gargleblaster · 05-05-2011 09:08PM

Domo230 wrote: »

Id argue that since most of our environmental challenges no longer come from predators but from dealing with each other that bullying would be a negative trait of evolution.

Bullying people gies you no reward and is seen by most women as a sign of your own weakness and insecurity. By bullying you are making yourself appear less attractive, providing yourself with at least one less person to be your ally (1 less resource) and are teaching yourself poor future social skills.

Think about it. The cool guy who has his life under control and is too busy enjoying female company is hardly going to give enough of a **** about you to bully you. He will be too busy living life.

Since bullying exists in humans, it must have some purpose with regards an evolutionary strategy but I cant image what. Showing your dominance towards other men is one thing but directing it to the weakest members makes little sense. If anything it should be the Alpha males they go for.

Couldn't it have been a tool used by Alpha males to achieve, and once achieved, assert and maintain dominance?

edit: Ok no, after reading your edit, it does seem to be the case that bullies pick on the weak, and not on those who might threaten their dominance, so nevermind.

cml387 · 05-05-2011 09:28PM

Kevin Duffy got my point.
Bullying in our modern world takes many forms.Deprivation of our jobs would be one.Humiliation in front of our peers would be another.

Bill gates I used as an example only because he would not be seen as a prototypical bully ,yet the way he treated Paul Allen would be construed as bullying.

mconigol · 05-05-2011 10:19PM

Well the weak are usually the ones who end up being successful & wealthy due to being bullied so no.

Logical Fallacy · 05-05-2011 10:59PM

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

mconigol · 05-05-2011 11:09PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

He worked hard, developed a good business and then people got jealous. Thus he became a big bully. One that donates millions to charity...it's all part of his evil scheme.

cml387 · 05-05-2011 11:17PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How is Gates a bully? Quite curious about that one.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/18058/paul_allens_tell_all_book_paints_microsofts_gates_as_an_ogre_can_he_be_believed

madison2011 · 05-05-2011 11:32PM

Bullies never operate in isolation. The motivation of the bully is clear (avarice, greed, gluttony, power - whatever) but what about the henchmen that surround him/her? It's apalling to watch the second tier behind the bully supporting and cajoling an idiot. They are the ones that need to be reeled in I think.

gargleblaster · 05-05-2011 11:38PM

mconigol wrote: »

He worked hard, developed a good business stole an OS, stole a few applications, got rich while putting several competitors out of business after putting out substandard versions of their software (their software was less compatible with his stolen OS, of course) and then people got jealous. Thus he became a big bully. One that donates millions to charity...it's all part of his evil scheme.

FYP

steddyeddy · 06-05-2011 12:25AM

Interesting thread. Well bullys definatly target the weak or anyone that sticks out. Anyone who sticks out by definition is weak in a group sense as they dont have the backing of a group. Wheter or not bullying is natural and has the same purpose in the animal kingdom is debatable many animals use threats and force to maintain a pecking order within a group but human bullying seems to be for pure spite and a desire to inflict suffering on a weaker member of the group. Bullying isnt the same as maintaining a pecking order I dont think. The other thing is a lot of people get stronger mentally or physically stronger (working out) after bulliyng but then some people are affected by it throughout their lives. Often the weak dont go to the wall most people I knew in school are now people to be pityed a lot had underlying depression and other problems so I dont think its strong versus weak.

06-05-2011 06:40AM

"I consider bullies to be weak and cowardly individuals who are scared of being victimised and so pick on others to try and divert attention from themselves."

That is literally not true.. Most bullies I've ever seen are strong and popular but have a dickhead side to them.
The line above is just crap said by schools to try make bullies feel bad and the weak feel stronger.

And I'm someone who would have been on the bullied side.

Amhran Nua · 06-05-2011 06:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

That is literally not true..

No, that is exactly true. It's even encouraged behaviour in certain professions.

Lanaier · 06-05-2011 07:25AM

bayern282 wrote: »

It begs the questions though, are some people born to be victims ? and can this type of thing really be eradicated as they're inherent in human nature.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phoebes-last-text-it-would-be-easier-if-they-handed-me-a-noose-2638097.html

Nope..that first girl Phoebe was very clearly singled out for being and outsider and the new girl. Nothing to do with weakness.

The fact of the matter is that all children are weak, bullies or not they all have their own developmental issues.
Part of growing up, and why they are protected.

cml387 wrote: »

But in our capaitalist system,bullies seem often to prosper.
Bill Gates,Michael O'Leary....

That has what to do with capitalism exactly?
You think there are no bullies in control in non-capitalist countries?

Azureus · 06-05-2011 07:45AM

Sometimes those who are bullied are weak, yes. Its why they are singled out.
But I dont think that makes the 'bullies' the strong one from a Darwinian viewpoint-I think bullies are generally equally as weak yet have just found a way to compensate for that weakness, by preying on somebody they know they can win against so to speak.

And then some people are just arrogant assholes who end up treating people like shiz because of their ego. Its never going to be cut and dried.

conorhal · 06-05-2011 09:17AM

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

If this turned out to be the way we are going as a species, we're fúcked, 'cos we'd have lost Einstien, Newton and Darwin from the gene pool in favour of Tyson, Steven Seagal and Vin Deisel (ignoring the timeshift). That's not a world I want to live in!

Our brain is what has led to us being the dominant species, not our propensity for violence.

Go tell the Romans, or any great empire... I'm afraid it's brains AND a propensity for violence FTW.
It's unpalatable, but there it is. No matter how effectively you socialize people those ape instincts are still there with their alpha and group hierarchy propensities and they work. Kids will bully, it’s human nature, I have to ask myself why it is that we are at out most innovative at, and directly after, times of war. Even out latest greatest invention the internet started as a military project to ensure that communication could be routed in the event of a nuclear strike knocking out a central communications hub.
We can tame the beast, but you still have to respect it’s nature, even a tame dog will bite if you ignore the basic rules that apply to it’s instincts.

Daegerty · 06-05-2011 09:19AM

Social darwinism is a load of horsesh1t

stovelid · 06-05-2011 09:25AM

Sometimes it's a cop-out (and debating society rhetoric) to simply stand behind the social or scientific origin of destructive human actions even when it's has some validity. As humans, we possess enough agency to criticize and attempt to prevent things like bullying - or any other action that is perceived to be wrong by societal consensus. You may as well say it's valid to kill and eat your neighbour's pet dog because you're hungry or beat the shit out of somebody in the competition to sleep with a woman.

Kevin Duffy · 06-05-2011 10:01AM

conorhal wrote: »

Go tell the Romans, or any great empire... I'm afraid it's brains AND a propensity for violence FTW.

And, eh, how's that working out for the Romans? As well as it worked out for the Nazis, The Huns, Napolean, The Ottoman Empire and similar?

conorhal · 06-05-2011 10:30AM

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

And, eh, how's that working out for the Romans? As well as it worked out for the Nazis, The Huns, Napolean, The Ottoman Empire and similar?

How's it working out for the Romans...and their thousand year domminance of the known world? Well, not so great lately, though empires rise and fall, you still remember their names and their history and their legacy though don't you?

The problem with the Nazi's, Napolean and the Ottomans (all of whom had various degrees of success, is that there is always another bully that's just that bit bigger and more deadly.
Napolean messed with the Brittish (several centuries of empire of their own there), The Ottomans messed with the inovative and scientifically advancing Austro-Hungarian empire, the Nazi's messed with the rising American Empire (and the fag end of the Brittish one).
The point being that when they wen't down, these empires tended to do so to empire's on the rise.
In a way, you could say that the history of progress is written in the history of conflict.

Show Time · 06-05-2011 10:54AM

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

The bullies in my school were also spectacularly dumb for the most part - Darwinism my hoop.

It would be the same in my old school and it's those same lads you see standing outside the bookies every day on the bum for money or smokes.

Kevin Duffy · 06-05-2011 11:18AM

conorhal wrote: »

How's it working out for the Romans...and their thousand year domminance of the known world? Well, not so great lately, though empires rise and fall, you still remember their names and their history and their legacy though don't you?
/QUOTE]

Not so great lately is right, whereas the ideas of Newton, Darwin, Da Vinci et al continue to have a profound effect, on a greater number of people, today. My point was that if "bullies" succeeded in evolutionary terms and outbred the bigger-brained, we'd suffer as a species through delayed development in science, technology etc. The key leaps in early evolution were in intelligence, leading to tool use, shelter building etc. If it were the physical improvements, then animals which could dominate us physically would be at the top of the tree, not us.

the_syco · 06-05-2011 11:28AM

bayern282 wrote: »

It begs the questions though, are some people born to be victims ? and can this type of thing really be eradicated as they're inherent in human nature.

The weak intelligent send the strong sheep to fight their battles. Only the intelligent will survive...

Spacedog · 06-05-2011 11:45AM

humans are social animals. we have evolved our minds to be socially orientated and to work together, bullies have a cave man pre-emptive attack approach, and always end up isolating themselves because of their aggressive tendencies.

the term 'survival if the fittest' is some times misleading regarding intelligent beings like humans. 'fit' refers not to phisical fitness, but to how well one is fit for their environment. the moment man picked up a stick, he became fitter than the phisically bigger monkies. The moment man learned to apply basic social rules and laws, people who acted out and broke them were placed at a disadvantage.

Spacedog · 06-05-2011 11:49AM

Daegerty wrote: »

Social darwinism is a load of horsesh1t

Care to step out side and say that?

Rocket19 · 06-05-2011 12:23PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

In any social hierarchy in the animal kingdom, there's always jostling for status. In the school yard that may be physical.
In a company, it may be political.
In a female social group, it may be bitchy.
In a family group, it may be competitive.

Not much you can do about it, while we all have egos.

The only way to avoid bullying, crime, war, etc is to completely destroy / genetically engineer out the part of our brains that wants to better ourselves in relation to others. But that's the part that makes us confident, ambitious, striving for excellence etc. So we'd end up as mindless drones, like worker ants.

This is ridiculous. You're implying that bullying is somehow a neccessity to 'get ahead'. While it is true that bullying can be a means of getting ahead (enforcing respect through fear), it is not the only option and certainly not the morally sound one.

Our need to "better ourselves in relation to others" does not require us to put down other people, or to walk on their heads to get to the top. This is a common way in which people choose to 'succeed' (be this in the schoolyard/workplace, whatever) and bullying is common. However, it is foolish to suggest that confidence, ambition, and excellence can only be achieved by bullying (or putting down) your competition. Quite the opposite. A noble person realises that success is achieved by proving yourself worthy against the attempts of others. It is an intrinsic measure, and one which should be compared to the attempts of others to show its worth.
If you are better than someone else, so to speak, this will shine through. If you are secure in your abilitites, why then should you feel the need to undermine someone else's? If you legitamily 'possess' a certain ego, why would you feel the need to destroy someone else's? You wouldn't. Bullying is the height of insecurity.

Success can be acheived without bulying. To suggest otherwise is absurd. "Beating the competition" (in any context) is not equivalent to bullying. Do you really think we would become "mindless drones" without bullying? Do you really think people could not succeed (or would not bother to try) if it were not possible to undermine others to get there? What happened to self-actualisation? Perhaps you should seek it. I believe the "best" will always show their worth.

Lumen · 06-05-2011 12:30PM

Daegerty wrote: »

Social darwinism is a load of horsesh1t

"Darwinism" is a stupid term anyway.

Natural selection in a biological sense is an aggregate phenomenon involving propagation of traits that affect reproductive fitness.

I don't really see what bullying has to do with that, even metaphorically.

Ray Palmer · 06-05-2011 12:44PM

The real problem is bully in a company can have little to do with actual weakness of an individual but may have more to do with the structure and manner of the work. Giving some individuals false strength.

I had people try to bully me while I was in various different contracts. Some because they simply have no manners others because they feel threatened. Then you get the people who have managed to get into a position of power and think that makes them superior to people below them and the resent those above them. The worst bullies I have seen are like that as they fear everybody and smack down people below them and normally find one person who doesn't stand up to them enough.

Is Bullying Social Darwinism where the weak go to the wall ? - Discuss

Comments