Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

Huh? Those who compete seek to win. That's normal. It's baked into the nature of competition. As is seeking the weakest possible opponent, as it maximizes the statistical chance of winning.

Bullying isn't a strategy, it's a subset of all possible competitive endeavors. Specifically in cases where there is an expectation of social cohesion, say as between classmates or coworkers (and within animal species) which is then violated, hence bullying. No one would describe a soldier "bullying" the enemy, since there is no social expectation of cooperative behavior. No, soldiers defeat, annihilate and decimate enemies. Senior soldiers bully underlings ON THEIR OWN SIDE, but not the enemy. Because of the social expectation of cooperation between soldiers on the same side.

That's an illuminating illustration. And it also offers an indication that bullying is associated (at the least) with competition. "Bullying is a subset of all possible competitive endeavors" tells us that bullying is one (of several) tools at the disposal of the competitor. I would agree with that. Those who compete seek to win, as you observe, and they use whatever tools they need to, to achieve their aims. But it's all a bit sociopathic, isn't it? Goal attainment, indifferent to the cost to others.

Yes, bullying is sociopathic as it occurs in violation of social norms and expectations. Competition is not generally sociopathic since in the majority of cases it occurs in socially designated areas of legitimate competition.

I would say bullying is more usually psychologically predatory than sociopathic. It isn't necessarily sadistic. Often it's a means to an end - fighting dirty to gain an unfair edge in competition. One doesn't need to be a sociopath to bully, just an immature or cynical human. It's one of many nasty possible behaviours that we humans manage to perpetrate in the argy bargy of life.

I guess in my wsy of understanding fighting "clean", fighting "dirty" and bullying are three separate entities. In the first two the goal is winning the prize that goes to the victor, they differentiate in the technique used to obtain the win. In the third (bullying), there may or may not even be a prize, the bully isn't so interested in that, he's more interested in violating the victim's understanding of "fairness" in how the game is supposed to be played, than winning the victory. In summary, it's more abouy the victim losing, than the bully winning. It's about humiliation.

[Pattern-chaser]

Bullying is overlooked by too many people and even encouraged by some as something that will make the victims stronger. The opposite is usually true. In adolescents it can lead to suicides.

I wonder if the differences we are seeing here in this topic could be down to whether we were/are bullies, the victims of bullies, or one of the lucky ones who stands between them, unnoticed?

In summary, it's more about the victim losing, than the bully winning. It's about humiliation.

Yes, that is the over-riding view from the perspective of the victim(s). Even if there is more to it, in the wider scheme of things.

[Pattern-chaser]

You did not understand what I was saying.

Yes. And I'm sorry my queries have diverted the discussion a little. But it's important to understand what's being said, and that isn't always easy when it comes to philosophy, where we sometimes want to make quite subtle points or distinctions.

[Pattern-chaser]

I know more about bullying than anyone here by a long chalk. I am not expert in many things, but I am expert in this area. I was almost driven to suicide by extreme bullying throughout high school, and later was bullied at various jobs.

You're an autist. Almost all of us were and are bullied. We make particularly good targets, it seems. When we look at it from our angle, it's difficult to accept the apparent connection between bullying and competition, which makes it look as though bullying is actually a necessary human attribute.

[Sy Borg]

I know more about bullying than anyone here by a long chalk. I am not expert in many things, but I am expert in this area. I was almost driven to suicide by extreme bullying throughout high school, and later was bullied at various jobs.

You're an autist. Almost all of us were and are bullied. We make particularly good targets, it seems. When we look at it from our angle, it's difficult to accept the apparent connection between bullying and competition, which makes it look as though bullying is actually a necessary human attribute. 😱😢

More inevitable than necessary.

[Sy Borg]

That's an illuminating illustration. 👍 And it also offers an indication that bullying is associated (at the least) with competition. "Bullying is a subset of all possible competitive endeavors" tells us that bullying is one (of several) tools at the disposal of the competitor. I would agree with that. Those who compete seek to win, as you observe, and they use whatever tools they need to, to achieve their aims. But it's all a bit sociopathic, isn't it? Goal attainment, indifferent to the cost to others. 🤔🤔

Yes, bullying is sociopathic as it occurs in violation of social norms and expectations. Competition is not generally sociopathic since in the majority of cases it occurs in socially designated areas of legitimate competition.

I would say bullying is more usually psychologically predatory than sociopathic. It isn't necessarily sadistic. Often it's a means to an end - fighting dirty to gain an unfair edge in competition. One doesn't need to be a sociopath to bully, just an immature or cynical human. It's one of many nasty possible behaviours that we humans manage to perpetrate in the argy bargy of life.

I guess in my wsy of understanding fighting "clean", fighting "dirty" and bullying are three separate entities. In the first two the goal is winning the prize that goes to the victor, they differentiate in the technique used to obtain the win. In the third (bullying), there may or may not even be a prize, the bully isn't so interested in that, he's more interested in violating the victim's understanding of "fairness" in how the game is supposed to be played, than winning the victory. In summary, it's more abouy the victim losing, than the bully winning. It's about humiliation.

Nope, that's just a certain type of bullying. I've had a clients who was bullied out of a job because his boss wanted to employ her friend in his position. Often, when cunning employees play the system, conventional discipline is impossible, so the bosses try to make their life unpleasant enough to quit. That is very common. Sometime employees bully other employees because they simply don't like them and want them to leave. Very often, the aim in workplace bullying is to either get the other to quit.

[Mo_reese]

Seems that bullying to advance one's self may be from human adaptation while bullying for pleasure is learned behavior.
Neither type is beneficial to society so why is it tolerated or even encouraged as in aggressive sports actions, Dirty Harry movies, workplace promotions, military, etc.

[Pattern-chaser]

Seems that bullying to advance one's self may be from human adaptation while bullying for pleasure is learned behavior.

That's an interesting thought. But do we see it in our real world? Do these two 'flavours' of bullying exist separately, as you describe?

[Genuine questions. I offer no opinion (yet).]

[Sy Borg]

Seems that bullying to advance one's self may be from human adaptation while bullying for pleasure is learned behavior.

That's an interesting thought. But do we see it in our real world? Do these two 'flavours' of bullying exist separately, as you describe?

[Genuine questions. I offer no opinion (yet).]

I already provided real life examples not long ago, which you seem to have skipped.

Yes, of course both type of bullying exist. There are other motivations too - ego games, revenge, spite and where employers have no other way of getting rid of dead wood employees who cannot be legally brought into line because they are so good at playing the game.

[Pattern-chaser]

Seems that bullying to advance one's self may be from human adaptation while bullying for pleasure is learned behavior.

That's an interesting thought. But do we see it in our real world? Do these two 'flavours' of bullying exist separately, as you describe?

[Genuine questions. I offer no opinion (yet).]

I already provided real life examples not long ago, which you seem to have skipped.

Yes, of course both type of bullying exist. There are other motivations too - ego games, revenge, spite and where employers have no other way of getting rid of dead wood employees who cannot be legally brought into line because they are so good at playing the game.

I tend to see the first 'type' of bullying as the familiar human ruthless profiteering, without care for the people or the lives involved. If you want to call it "bullying", I won't argue. But in my eyes it is qualitatively different from the second 'type', Bullying For Pleasure, that I have experienced in my own real life, as a victim. It's the pleasure, the entertainment value, of bullying that makes the difference, I think. Isn't that the difference between psychopathy (or sadism?) and sociopathy, more or less?

[Sy Borg]

Seems that bullying to advance one's self may be from human adaptation while bullying for pleasure is learned behavior.

That's an interesting thought. But do we see it in our real world? Do these two 'flavours' of bullying exist separately, as you describe?

[Genuine questions. I offer no opinion (yet).]

I already provided real life examples not long ago, which you seem to have skipped.

Yes, of course both type of bullying exist. There are other motivations too - ego games, revenge, spite and where employers have no other way of getting rid of dead wood employees who cannot be legally brought into line because they are so good at playing the game.

I tend to see the first 'type' of bullying as the familiar human ruthless profiteering, without care for the people or the lives involved. If you want to call it "bullying", I won't argue. But in my eyes it is qualitatively different from the second 'type', Bullying For Pleasure, that I have experienced in my own real life, as a victim. It's the pleasure, the entertainment value, of bullying that makes the difference, I think. Isn't that the difference between psychopathy (or sadism?) and sociopathy, more or less?

Sure, when you have been a victim of sadistic bullying - and I have too - it can dominate one's thoughts. Still, I have seen (well, heard) considerable distress caused by other bullying. For instance, the rural worker who was ruining his back because his boss would not supply lifting equipment, who had to make his report anonymous because his employer would ruin his reputation with other local employers, and he'd not be able to find another job.

In the end, being bullied is a terrible experience, no matter what type. I've been bullied because the boss was a hard-left zealot. Luckily, a manager of an adjacent section needed a data person and I was rescued. In later chatting with people who filled my former position, every one of them was bullied by this political player. In the end, the bully was "encouraged to find another job" after she drove a NESB trainee to tears - and mistreating either NESBs or trainees were taboo in that organisation (picking on me was presumably fine). Still, it took years to mend relationships due to her white-anting. People kept being surprised that I was easy to work with.

While nothing is worse than being at the mercy of sadists, being bullied by an ideologue who sees your importance as ant-like compared with their grand visions is no picnic either.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sure, when you have been a victim of sadistic bullying - and I have too - it can dominate one's thoughts. Still, I have seen (well, heard) considerable distress caused by other bullying. For instance, the rural worker who was ruining his back because his boss would not supply lifting equipment, who had to make his report anonymous because his employer would ruin his reputation with other local employers, and he'd not be able to find another job.

In the end, being bullied is a terrible experience, no matter what type. I've been bullied because the boss was a hard-left zealot. Luckily, a manager of an adjacent section needed a data person and I was rescued. In later chatting with people who filled my former position, every one of them was bullied by this political player. In the end, the bully was "encouraged to find another job" after she drove a NESB trainee to tears - and mistreating either NESBs or trainees were taboo in that organisation (picking on me was presumably fine). Still, it took years to mend relationships due to her white-anting. People kept being surprised that I was easy to work with.

While nothing is worse than being at the mercy of sadists, being bullied by an ideologue who sees your importance as ant-like compared with their grand visions is no picnic either.

We are pretty much in agreement, then. It's only the terms that we disagree on. You are happier to include more aspects to "bullying" than I am. But that's only semantic disagreement. It isn't really significant.

[Gertie]

It seems there are two types of bullying being discussed. One where a stark imbalance of power is used to overpower and humiliate a weaker victim, for example when the bigger kid takes the lunch money from the small kid. This isn't competition and IMO not healthy for society. This type of bully is usually insecure and themselves victims of bullying.
Although I haven't found such a definition it seems from discussions here that strong competition for power or resources can involve bullying. Some view these actions beneficial to society. It looks to me like too much of this domineering is detrimental and what usually brings down societies that rely on such. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.

Yes it's the taking advantage of a power imbalance to do harm that characterises bullying to me.

It's natural in the way we have selfish predispositions which help us survive and reproduce. But as a social species we also have a natural sense of fairness which makes bullying feel yucky.

Of course there are variations in individuals, and the role of the environment (cultural and personal experience) will contribute to that. But we've survived as a species employing both selfish and social traits
Generally speaking societies find a balance which works, until it doesn't, then the balance shifts.

That's the Is of human nature. How we Ought to behave is a different, moral, question. Humans are smart too - we're primarily driven by our passions as Hume would say, but we can also conceptualise about Right and Wrong, and change our behaviour accordingly. Somewhat.

Then again we can use our smarts to rationalise pretty much anything, often without even realising.

Beautifully summarised.

— Yes, we are, in part, disagreeing over our personal understandings of "bullying", and other related terms.
— Yes, humans have employed selfish behaviour and co-operative behaviour since we came down from the trees.

So does that mean bullying will never stop, never go away? Are we all doomed to be aggressors (the bullies) or victims (the bullied), with no third option?

It's up to us. We can try to do better, or throw up our hands. History shows us similar problems persist, but progress has happened regardless - and we're the beneficiaries of those who came before who tried.

[Sy Borg]

Sure, when you have been a victim of sadistic bullying - and I have too - it can dominate one's thoughts. Still, I have seen (well, heard) considerable distress caused by other bullying. For instance, the rural worker who was ruining his back because his boss would not supply lifting equipment, who had to make his report anonymous because his employer would ruin his reputation with other local employers, and he'd not be able to find another job.

In the end, being bullied is a terrible experience, no matter what type. I've been bullied because the boss was a hard-left zealot. Luckily, a manager of an adjacent section needed a data person and I was rescued. In later chatting with people who filled my former position, every one of them was bullied by this political player. In the end, the bully was "encouraged to find another job" after she drove a NESB trainee to tears - and mistreating either NESBs or trainees were taboo in that organisation (picking on me was presumably fine). Still, it took years to mend relationships due to her white-anting. People kept being surprised that I was easy to work with.

While nothing is worse than being at the mercy of sadists, being bullied by an ideologue who sees your importance as ant-like compared with their grand visions is no picnic either.

We are pretty much in agreement, then. It's only the terms that we disagree on. You are happier to include more aspects to "bullying" than I am. But that's only semantic disagreement. It isn't really significant. 👍

If you don't see picking on a subordinate for ideological or practical reasons as bullying, what would you call it?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you don't see picking on a subordinate for ideological or practical reasons as bullying, what would you call it?

Do the labels we use matter so much? We agree on the essentials, and only disagree (not even seriously) on the term to use.

My personal feeling is that is makes sense to differentiate between tormenting someone for personal entertainment (sadism), or for commercial reasons (capitalism). But if you want to call them both "bullying", I'm not going to argue about the choice of label. It isn't important enough.