Fighting for your bullied child

[Alan C.]

Fighting for your bullied child

The bullying Jackie Libby’s son, Alex, faced every day was so severe
that she worried the emotional toll would drive him to suicide.

“I would lay up with my husband at night and … just cry and say …
what if he decides he doesn’t want to be here anymore? I mean, at that
point, there was really only one more way to disengage. He was failing
out of school. He wasn’t involved with his family at all. He didn’t want
to have anything to do with his siblings. He didn’t have any friends,”
Libby said. “There was only one more way for him to get out.”

Alex first spoke about his tormentors not to his mother but on camera
to documentary filmmaker Lee Hirsch in what would become the
award-winning film “Bully.”

“They punch me in the jaw, strangle me. They knock things out of my
hand, take things from me, sit on me,” Alex said in the movie. “They
push me so far that I want to become the bully."

The footage Hirsch captured of Alex
being beaten on the school bus was so shocking that the filmmaker felt a
moral imperative to show it to Alex’s mother and officials at his
school in Sioux City, Iowa. For Libby, it was the beginning of a battle
for justice for her son. “My reaction was, I just started bawling, and
then I got angry,” she said.

She immediately met with an assistant principal at her son’s school
but did not get the results she hoped for. “I did go in there
originally, when Lee told us what was going on with Alex, with the idea
that all I had to do was go in and say ‘this is what’s happening.’ We’d
show them the footage like Lee showed us, and they would fix it,” Libby
said. “That didn’t happen.”

The response from the school was to offer to move Alex to another bus
route, but the assistant principal admitted that he could become a
victim of bullying no matter which bus he rode to school. The school
also questioned all of Alex’s tormentors and gave them warnings, but
unfortunately the abuse didn’t stop.

“Everything that happened to me on that bus happened to me every day,
if not worse,” Alex said. “Some of them I grew up with, but they turned
on me because they didn’t want to get bullied.”

Libby continued the fight and, after multiple meetings with the
school, moved up the ladder to the superintendent. “If they don’t
listen, find out who’s above them. If they don’t listen, find out who’s
above them. Just keep going up, because at some point, somebody’s going
to listen,” she said.

For the Libbys, while they had met with the highest official they
could, the bullying continued and then spread to Alex’s younger sister.

“I got a call … saying there was an altercation with my daughter at
the same school,” Libby said. “I walked in, and Maya was bawling, and
the side of her face was black and blue and swollen … and she got
punched in the face on the playground. Ultimately, we just decided it
wasn’t a battle we were going to win on our own. So, we left.”

They first transferred their children to a school across town and
eventually moved to a suburb of Oklahoma City. The family spent weeks
researching school systems before deciding where to live...

So, the school "questioned" the kids who bullied Alex. Did they question the parents? I doubt it.

[Rick Horton]

You're right. It's irresponsible to talk with children about things without the inclusion of their parents. 

[Alan C.]

Well, yes, it's irresponsible to do that, but I thought that talking to the parents might give some insight about the way the parents interact with their children at home. Children become bullies because they, themselves, are bullied by their parents.

[Rick Horton]

 

Well, yes, it's irresponsible to do that, but I thought that talking to the parents might give some insight about the way the parents interact with their children at home. Children become bullies because they, themselves, are bullied by their parents.

 

It's a tough world.

[STer]

 

Children become bullies because they, themselves, are bullied by their parents.

 

So any child who bullies, you can automatically condemn his or her parents as having abused them? No further evidence needed? Kind of uncomfortable with that.

 

[Arius]

So any child who bullies, you can automatically condemn his or her parents as having abused them? No further evidence needed? Kind of uncomfortable with that.

It would be strange if people could just point out their abusers.

[STer]

 

So any child who bullies, you can automatically condemn his or her parents as having abused them? No further evidence needed? Kind of uncomfortable with that.

It would be strange if people could just point out their abusers.

 

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please explain.

[Arius]

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

[STer]

 

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

 

I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... 

[Arius]

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

When children demonstrate that sort of behavior, it indicates that someone who the child believes should be modeled is behaving badly.  If not parents, then someone very close to the child in social terms.  Perhaps an aunt, uncle, or grandparents.  I'd be inclined to believe it was the child's primary (or immediate secondary) caregiver.  Regardless, the behavior indicates the presence of some kind of close-to-home abuse.  Not necessarily physical abuse.  Not all bullies are beaten.  Lots of bullying revolves around humiliation, shame, and guilt.  As far as I know, our society doesn't recognize a parent humiliating, shaming, or blaming a child as abusive.  Though, a husband humiliating his wife would be considered abusive.  There are lots of double standards.

I can't speak on appropriate actions, that's more of a theory-of-justice question.  I'm only pointing out that children report what they perceive as abuse in weird ways; primarily by persistently modeling the behavior.  My point is purely observational.

[STer]

 

 

 

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

 

I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... 

 

I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury.

I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions. 

[Rick Horton]

right, and furthermore, who says it's not peers who are influencing the kids to bully. They can influence each other, and that's a really strong possibility. Or, maybe there are abusive teachers, drug dealers in the neighborhoods, etc.... Playing expert is pretty arrogant, and irresponsible. 

[STer]

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

When children demonstrate that sort of behavior, it indicates that someone who the child believes should be modeled is behaving badly.  If not parents, then someone very close to the child in social terms.  Perhaps an aunt, uncle, or grandparents.  I'd be inclined to believe it was the child's primary (or immediate secondary) caregiver.  Regardless, the behavior indicates the presence of some kind of close-to-home abuse.  Not necessarily physical abuse.  Not all bullies are beaten.  Lots of bullying revolves around humiliation, shame, and guilt.  As far as I know, our society doesn't recognize a parent humiliating, shaming, or blaming a child as abusive.  Though, a husband humiliating his wife would be considered abusive.  There are lots of double standards.

I can't speak on appropriate actions, that's more of a theory-of-justice question.  I'm only pointing out that children report what they perceive as abuse in weird ways; primarily by persistently modeling the behavior.  My point is purely observational.

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive (something apparently considered impossible by many on this board), and even allowing for the possibility bullies are all abused, for all we know it could be someone on a vacation that the family took that the parents didn't even know or find out about and now the child is acting out. Also, why could it not be a child imitating friends? Are you saying children don't do things to gain status with their friends, often things their parents wouldn't approve of?

The question here isn't "Do children sometimes act out as a form of communicating silent abuse?" The question is "Is all acting out a commuication of silent abuse?" You seem willing to say it always is. I find that a speculative statement that requires a ton of empirical support, especially given the massive implications it would have for many many people.

I know child abuse holds a special place on this forum as an important issue and rightfully so. But I am really uncomfortable with the way that people who are usually so skeptical and questioning and make every attempt to gather the facts and be rational will throw all of that out the window when it comes to this issue. In fact, it's such an important issue that we should be even more insistent on facts instead of speculation, not less.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

 

I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... 

 

I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury.

I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions. 

 

Anyhow, We all mostly know, especially us philosophy lovers that it would be really useless to interview the kids about bullying without their parents being interviewed as well. Not to blame them, but to find out what they might think is wrong too. And if somehow they expose abusive tendencies you could take it from there, but NOT without first talking to the parents. Kids say the damndest things, for the damndest reasons, and even the most direct statements from children can have pretty esoteric roots. You have to decypher what kids say in many cases because they don't even want to talk, or are afraid. They could not only be afraid of the parents, but also feel coerced by the interviewer to give answers that lean ways that are very distorted so it's better to have EVERYBODY involved before crucifying ANYBODY. 

[STer]

 

 

 

 

 

Children develop behaviors in two ways.  They invent and model.  Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures.  Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior.  Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal.  Instead, they model the behaviors.  It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it.  In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated.

Bullying is an abnormal behavior.  Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior.  Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted).  Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior.  Don't you see?  Bullying is one way children report abuse.  In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

 

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

 

I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... 

 

I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury.

I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions. 

 

Anyhow, We all mostly know, especially us philosophy lovers that it would be really useless to interview the kids about bullying without their parents being interviewed as well. Not to blame them, but to find out what they might think is wrong too. And if somehow they expose abusive tendencies you could take it from there, but NOT without first talking to the parents. Kids say the damndest things, for the damndest reasons, and even the most direct statements from children can have pretty esoteric roots. You have to decypher what kids say in many cases because they don't even want to talk, or are afraid. They could not only be afraid of the parents, but also feel coerced by the interviewer to give answers that lean ways that are very distorted so it's better to have EVERYBODY involved before crucifying ANYBODY. 

 

Good researchers who are trained in working with kids know all this and have methods for helping draw things out. This is really a research task for technically proficient investigators and I believe there are some people out there doing research on bullying. I would like to see more of it done to decipher more of what's going on and see it done in an unbiased manner. Until then it's irresponsible to make broad blanket statements that end up accusing people without enough evidence.

[Alan C.]

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

[STer]

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

That's an astounding disregard for burden of proof for someone on a philosophy site dedicated to empiricism and reason. And that's exactly what I mean. If anyone made an equivalent request on any other issue, like, for example, religion, you'd be up in arms at their reversal of the burden of proof. But when it comes to child abuse, suddenly all of that goes out the window.

Furthermore, have you undertaken a serious good faith effort to find such a case in an unbiased manner? Did you look just as hard for those cases as you do for cases on the other side? I suspect not.

[Rick Horton]

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

I know this isn't for me, but what does the question have to do with anything?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

Wait. Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves?  Please give proof of THAT.

[STer]

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

Also I'll repost this quote from Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley, which I've posted several times on the board with nobody following up on it:

"Oddly enough, one study has shown that murderers who have a normal family upbringing have even lower function in their right orbitofrontal cortical areas than murderers who were abused during childhood. Perhaps murderers "without a psychosocial 'push' toward violence require a greater neurobiological 'push.' In other words, children with less severe neurological problems may be helped by having a normal upbringing - but children with more severe neurological difficulties may not be."

And here is the footnote for that statement:

12. Adrian Raine et al., "Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16 (1998): 319-32.

[STer]

 

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

Wait. Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves?  Please give proof of THAT.

 

That claim is actually one of the fundamental claims made on this site. It's one I've taken a lot of issue with.

See my initial post if you're interested.

"Born Evil?": Ponerology as a Transcendent, Unifying Priority

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive...

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity.

 

Wait. Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves?  Please give proof of THAT.

 

That claim is actually one of the fundamental claims made on this site. It's one I've taken a lot of issue with.

See my initial post if you're interested.

 

"Born Evil?": Ponerology as a Transcendent, Unifying Priority

 

 

Thanks. I wasn't aware of any of this on this board, and it's probably not even discussed here often, right? I mean, I don't remember a time in my life where I considered a spanking to be abuse when I was spanked. In fact, I would test my parents up to that point, to see how far I could push them. They taught, and taught, and tried to teach, but I was really stubborn. I'd push all the way till I saw my Dad pull the belt out of his jean loops like some kind of Martial artist. I knew THAT was the point I couldn't cross. He'd spank, and sometimes use a belt, although I think more to make my mother feel bad, lol. He would hit the sheets and smile, and say shhh.... Then my mom would yell, GARY!!!!! Stop THAT!!! But he'd only just spanked me, and made it sound like he hit me with his belt. He was guilting my mother because he'd be watching football, or doing yardwork and I would be a little butthole to my mother some how or another and she'd tell him OVER and over to do something. He'd hold off until he got really annoyed and the blow up at me, scare me, run into my room chasing me with his belt, but he'd turn it into a little show for my mom. Probably so she wouldn't bother him the next time. She'd be afraid he'd belt me really hard or something. Anyhow, I grew up in a tough ass neighborhood, and my parents toughened me up enough to be able to walk with my head held high, but still instilled in me, mercy. They LOVE me so much. I used to spank my kids, but only in dangerous situations where they didn't have the ability to understand the gravity of what they were doing. Like if one walked toward the street and I said, hey, come back. Stay away from the street, but the little guy would keep walking and sort of smile at me like he's testing me I'd go grab and spank right there on the spot without hesitation, so they FEAR my spanking and associate that pain with the situation, or traffic and not listening. I do believe that that is very justified. I don't begrudge anybody that never spanks. I just don't begrudge a well placed spanking, either.  Adults forget how much they were not just good little kids, but how at times they were testy, mischeivous, dangerously curious, and just plain ungrateful. I know I was, and it's easy for me to blame my parents for my upbringing, but I was a little asshole, too. Probably because I've always had a strong will, and I would NEVER fault my upbringing for something I cherish so much, as my STRONG ass will. 

[Arius]

Two quotes from the paper:

"In animals, rats who are stressed early in life are right hemisphere dominant for mice-killing (Garbanati, Sherman, Rosen, Hofmann, Yutzey, & Denenberg, 1983).  It is possible therefore that, depending on presence of other social triggers and early stressful environmental circumstances, increased right hemisphere subcortical activity could predispose the individual to experience negative affect which fosters aggressive feelings and which in turn act as a general predisposition to violent behavior. "

"Second, findings cannot currently be generalized at the present date from NGRI murder cases to other types of violent offenders in the community."

1: Social triggers and early environmental circumstances are the event which foster aggressive feelings.  Malformed brain tissues are more sensitive to these triggering events.  The events and environment are the cause.

2: The cohort size (41 people) is much too small to draw any general conclusions.

[STer]

 

Two quotes from the paper:

"In animals, rats who are stressed early in life are right hemisphere dominant for mice-killing (Garbanati, Sherman, Rosen, Hofmann, Yutzey, & Denenberg, 1983).  It is possible therefore that, depending on presence of other social triggers and early stressful environmental circumstances, increased right hemisphere subcortical activity could predispose the individual to experience negative affect which fosters aggressive feelings and which in turn act as a general predisposition to violent behavior. "

"Second, findings cannot currently be generalized at the present date from NGRI murder cases to other types of violent offenders in the community."

1: Social triggers and early environmental circumstances are the event which foster aggressive feelings.  Malformed brain tissues are more sensitive to these triggering events.  The events and environment are the cause.

2: The cohort size (41 people) is much too small to draw any general conclusions.

 

Right, so you can't draw any solid conclusions yet - that means in either direction. Which means a lot more research is needed before we can make any grand statements like "children only bully if they've been bullied." That's all I'm saying.

[Alan C.]

...have you undertaken a serious good faith effort to find such a case in an unbiased manner? Did you look just as hard for those cases as you do for cases on the other side? I suspect not.

Have you? I suspect not. Your posts tend to consist of sanctimony and snubs.

I didn't ask you to quote me a paragraph in a book in which the author speculated on a study; I asked you to reference some evidence.

How does the author, or the study, define normal upbringing, neurological problem, or neurological difficulty? You're simply taking it for granted that they define those things the same way that you do.

Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves? Please give proof of THAT.

It's possible that a physiological aberration could impair a child in such a way that he/she is unable to restrain impulse. However, the evidence suggests that violent tendencies in children result from abuse and neglect. How many cases are you aware of in which children were uncontrollably violent despite being in the care of loving, nurturing parents who never yelled at, degraded, or hit them?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Two quotes from the paper:

"In animals, rats who are stressed early in life are right hemisphere dominant for mice-killing (Garbanati, Sherman, Rosen, Hofmann, Yutzey, & Denenberg, 1983).  It is possible therefore that, depending on presence of other social triggers and early stressful environmental circumstances, increased right hemisphere subcortical activity could predispose the individual to experience negative affect which fosters aggressive feelings and which in turn act as a general predisposition to violent behavior. "

"Second, findings cannot currently be generalized at the present date from NGRI murder cases to other types of violent offenders in the community."

1: Social triggers and early environmental circumstances are the event which foster aggressive feelings.  Malformed brain tissues are more sensitive to these triggering events.  The events and environment are the cause.

2: The cohort size (41 people) is much too small to draw any general conclusions.

 

Right, so you can't draw any solid conclusions yet - that means in either direction. Which means a lot more research is needed before we can make any grand statements like "children only bully if they've been bullied." That's all I'm saying.

 

I agree. And I'll add that philosophy doesn't necessarily give anybody moral highground in deciding what is right for other families. The parent child dynamic is too complicated to have an outsider with too little information draw some kind of conclusion. The child's very life is supported by the parents, and if not for them doing so the child would be either dead, or in an orphanage. That being said, There are lineages of families that have certain methods of teaching, and not all teaching necessarily has to hold values such as virtue, nobility, non aggression, etc... Some families just didn't come from areas that would have worked in, and still don't. It's a very high bar to meet, when you are trying to interfere with a family issue. If there is some obvious physical abuse, or some obvious mental abuse that endangers the childs life then yeah. I think an outsider may need to help out. But if people just start pointing fingers at families because of an unhappy child, that's just really not responsible unless the uttmost effort, expertise, and care is used. I'm ashamed of the comments in this thread from Alan Chapman. This is no simple matter of, " Oh a kid is bullying, therefore his parents are bullying. " That is just the most irresponsible thing I've heard lately even OUTSIDE of a philosophy forum that prizes itself on reason. 

[Rick Horton]

I will tell you that in my own life I have known SEVERAL kids who had very loving family environments, but turned to the dark side for a multitude of "outside" reasons. Reasons beyond the doors of the home.

[STer]

 

...have you undertaken a serious good faith effort to find such a case in an unbiased manner? Did you look just as hard for those cases as you do for cases on the other side? I suspect not.

Have you? I suspect not. Your posts tend to consist of sanctimony and snubs.

I didn't ask you to quote me a paragraph in a book in which the author speculated on a study; I asked you to reference some evidence.

How does the author, or the study, define normal upbringing, neurological problem, or neurological difficulty? You're simply taking it for granted that they define those things the same way that you do.

 

What is sanctimonious is accusing parents of abuse with no evidence other than their child participating in bullying.

Apparently the burden of proof issue went right over your head. Instead of realizing the burden of proof is on you, not us, you just ask again for proof.

Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves? Please give proof of THAT.

 

It's possible that a physiological aberration could impair a child in such a way that he/she is unable to restrain impulse. However, the evidence suggests that violent tendencies in children result from abuse and neglect. How many cases are you aware of in which children were uncontrollably violent despite being in the care of loving, nurturing parents who never yelled at, degraded, or hit them?

 

I'm surprised how often some people on this forum talk about what the evidence suggests in a way that very few people who work on that evidence for a living would agree with. They seek out the one or two they can find, like Gabor Mate, and act like this is the consensus in the field. I read about the work in this field daily and almost everyone in it says that nature vs. nurture is an unsolved issue and that to the extent we have any idea, it seems like a very difficult to separate mixture. I almost never come across anyone working in this field who says "It's nature" or "It's nurture" (though I do know of some who work in this field for years and lean strongly toward nature). But on FDR, among people coming at it from an ideological approach, I hear every day how we're quite certain it's nurture, not nature.

Pointing out how this goes against every rational tenet supposedly held here only results in more of the same. So I've accepted it as almost a religious belief by some on the board, held to cope with their anger at their own experiences with abusers. Unfortunately this justified anger at abusers gets projected beyond where it's justified onto situations where we don't really know the truth. That's where I get uncomfortable.

I think people here forget that while child abuse hurts kids and should be prevented in every way feasible, falsely accusing parents can also hurt kids. What kids need is for people to take the time to seek the truth and act responsibly in each case, not knee jerk jump to conclusions every time a kid acts in a way that is dysfunctional and just assume the parents are at fault.