"Getting bullied is free feedback from the real world that is insanely valuable information."
Absolute nonsense. The author is just too intelligent to understand why kids actually bully each other. The real reason is so bizarre it just wouldn't occur to them.
For the most part, kids and teenagers don't get bullied for some undesirable behaviour that could be fixed, but for the most inane reasons you could imagine.
The trigger can be anything. Maybe your nose is big. Maybe someone randomly came up with a rhyme using your name and it stuck. Maybe your skin is darker than the rest of the class. Maybe it's just because you're Madeleine, so you have Madeleine germs. It's stupid reasons like that, for the most part.
In any case, whatever the initial trigger, once it sticks everyone goes along with it because to do otherwise would be uncool. There's no reasonable action the victim could have taken to prevent it from happening, and once it starts there's usually no individual bully that the victim can confront as the author seems to imagine. Maybe a child as smart as the author could fix it for themselves, but the other 99% simply won't have the life experience to know how to handle this, and going to an authority figure is the best approach.
And in the situation where someone does have some behavioural problem, bullying is just a terrible feedback mechanism. Just take the guy or girl aside, explain what the problem is and what they should do to fix it. In some cases this will fix the problem in just a few minutes. Much less effort than spending a few weeks of bullying them that may or may not bring about the change you desire.
(edit: I've been critical but the article was also well written and there's a lot of good points)
I strongly disagree with the notion that social status is a zero sum game, unless you're using a definition where the notion is almost meaningless. Obviously a society where people like and trust each other is preferable to one where people dislike and distrust each other. If you define it in terms of respect, you can have a society where people respect one another and one where they do not.
You could define "social status" in terms of one's place in the pecking order regardless of other factors, but then I'd say you're focusing on the wrong thing. I'd rather be a median American than the richest guy in a medieval village, and I'd rather be of average social status in a high-trust society with good vibes than have high social status in a low-trust society with bad vibes.
Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. "Who is richest compared to everyone else" is a zero-sum game by definition, but it's a silly thing to optimise for. I wouldn't want to increase my wealth rank by destroying the wealth of other people, nor would I want to increase my "social status" rank (as the author seems to be using the term) by putting down other people.
You make good points. Will reply more thoroughly in the coming days. Thanks for commenting and providing substantial disagreement (and not just focusing on my inflammatory style)
"Getting bullied is free feedback from the real world that is insanely valuable information."
Absolute nonsense. The author is just too intelligent to understand why kids actually bully each other. The real reason is so bizarre it just wouldn't occur to them.
For the most part, kids and teenagers don't get bullied for some undesirable behaviour that could be fixed, but for the most inane reasons you could imagine.
The trigger can be anything. Maybe your nose is big. Maybe someone randomly came up with a rhyme using your name and it stuck. Maybe your skin is darker than the rest of the class. Maybe it's just because you're Madeleine, so you have Madeleine germs. It's stupid reasons like that, for the most part.
In any case, whatever the initial trigger, once it sticks everyone goes along with it because to do otherwise would be uncool. There's no reasonable action the victim could have taken to prevent it from happening, and once it starts there's usually no individual bully that the victim can confront as the author seems to imagine. Maybe a child as smart as the author could fix it for themselves, but the other 99% simply won't have the life experience to know how to handle this, and going to an authority figure is the best approach.
And in the situation where someone does have some behavioural problem, bullying is just a terrible feedback mechanism. Just take the guy or girl aside, explain what the problem is and what they should do to fix it. In some cases this will fix the problem in just a few minutes. Much less effort than spending a few weeks of bullying them that may or may not bring about the change you desire.
(edit: I've been critical but the article was also well written and there's a lot of good points)
I strongly disagree with the notion that social status is a zero sum game, unless you're using a definition where the notion is almost meaningless. Obviously a society where people like and trust each other is preferable to one where people dislike and distrust each other. If you define it in terms of respect, you can have a society where people respect one another and one where they do not.
You could define "social status" in terms of one's place in the pecking order regardless of other factors, but then I'd say you're focusing on the wrong thing. I'd rather be a median American than the richest guy in a medieval village, and I'd rather be of average social status in a high-trust society with good vibes than have high social status in a low-trust society with bad vibes.
Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. "Who is richest compared to everyone else" is a zero-sum game by definition, but it's a silly thing to optimise for. I wouldn't want to increase my wealth rank by destroying the wealth of other people, nor would I want to increase my "social status" rank (as the author seems to be using the term) by putting down other people.
You make good points. Will reply more thoroughly in the coming days. Thanks for commenting and providing substantial disagreement (and not just focusing on my inflammatory style)