The nasty violence inherent in children

[BILL53]

The nasty violence inherent in children -- Recently, the 10-year-old daughter of a friend of mine spent several months being bullied viciously by three other fourth-grade girls. Several times a week, these girls would surround the victim on the playground or in the hallway, and bombard the girl with cruel remarks about her appearance, her clothes, her unpopularity, and who knows what other creative torments.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8011.shtml

[Horse with no Name]

1. Children aren't inherently violent

The majority of violent tendencies come from extrinsic factors.
Rarely, you will have a child who is just wired wrong but that is the exception and not the rule.

[ixion]

3. yep...children learn that behavior from their parents

and other adults their parents associate with.

[abluelady]

8. I Totally Disagree-- to a Point

I have a grandchild who is surrounded only by love but loves superheros who appear "mean" to him. This beautiful child makes a "mean" face that you could eat with a spoon. Of course his parents are not going to allow him to be violent--hopefully they have that influence. Certain "meanness" just goes along with certain ages in children. These mean 10 year olds should outgrow what they are doing. So much of this just has to do with being a kid and being immature. Let's not look too deeply at everything. Most of us have done some ugly things when we were kids and we are quite fine adults.

[ixion]

9. genetics plays a large factor, to be sure

but it's the peer and parent relationships in the formative years (2-6) that define how the child will react to stressful situations down the line.

Serial Killers aren't generally born, although that does happen. More often, they are products of a sustained cruel environment.

Just my two cents. :hi:

[Road Scholar]

23. I grew up in violence and had to consciously "unlearn" it .

But I did!!:toast:

[mopinko]

4. you have a way too warm, fuzzy view of human nature

we are violent animals at our core. we have an ugly side. this happens in every school. human nature is ugly, and it is not caused by parents.
and, mental illness is increasing greatly. incidence is increasing, and age of onset is dropping.

[Horse with no Name]

5. You don't think these kids learn this behavior from their parents?

I would bet good money that every one of these little girls has a mother just like them at home.

[mopinko]

6. nurture can shape things around the edges

it cannot overturn thousands of years of evolution.
this mother bashing that comes out here makes me :puke:

[Horse with no Name]

7. That wasn't "mother" bashing

But I have two grown daughters and I know FIRST HAND that girls that age are VERY MUCH like their Mothers from being involved in PTO, athletics, Girls Scouts, etc.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree--especially at that impressionable age.

[mopinko]

12. i have 5 kids

they are born who they are. they react to their environment in their own way. and there is such a thing as human nature. this idea that a baby is a blank slate that a mother fills in is outdated claptrap. you have organized your observations to fit your opinion.
saying that they have "a mother just like them at home" is not bashing? yes, good parenting tend to yield better kids, bad parenting tends to yield worse kids. that is the edges. many real saints have real devils for children.
people here jump to the conclusion that mom is an evil bitch every time some bad kid is discussed here. it is misogynist bullshit. especially since no one ever mentions dad, unless he is directly accused of abuse. examine your presumptions, please.

[Horse with no Name]

13. When you have little girls that are 8-10 years old

The most important woman in their life is their Mom (or mother figure).
Most little girls--even though they might love their Daddy (or father figure)--do not emulate them at this point in their life.
They have just entered middle childhood and are learning their identity as a girl and look to their role model for guidance of how to act.
You really should step off your high horse--there was no misogynist bullshit here. Just age appropriateness. Just as little boys this age are going to emulate their Dad's (or father figure).
Of course this wouldn't be true if you were talking about an older children because by then, most of them reach to outside sources to mold their development.

[mopinko]

14. claptrap.

just plain claptrap, imho. congratulations on your achievement of a middle class, under control life. life and family is a lot more complex than a benjamin spock manual for most of the world.
jumping on moms is one of the last really acceptable forms of misogyny out there. sorry, it is my pet peeve.

[Horse with no Name]

18. Your opinion

:shrug:

[mopinko]

22. think about it for a while.

maybe it will sink in. no parent wants to really contemplate how little control they have. it is frightening. but it is reality. if you are lucky enough to never be bitten in the ass by it, count your blessings. but your take is a little like thinking poor people earned it.

[TheWraith]

44. You're in the wrong, here, mopinko.

Moving right past your grossly simplistic view of human development, which is quite wrongheaded, you were considerably out of line in saying that Horse with no Name was engaging in "mother bashing" and misogyny. It's offensive to HWNN, and it's tantamount to the Republican Defense: if you disagree with me you're (subsitute "a misogynist" for "unAmerican").

By your logic, there's no point in kids having parents at all--since they're all going to be exactly who they are anyway, we should just leave them in creches, and let them turn out the way they were predestined to.

The simple reality is that parents in particular and the environment in general do indeed have a huge amount of influence on kids' behavior. It's a provable fact, and if you choose to ignore it, don't try to force your narrow viewpoint on others.

[patcox2]

49. She's not in the wrong at all, too much knee-jerk blaming of parents is

Nature vs. nurture is far from a closed argument. Anyone with eyes can see one thing, temperment is inherited, children do have their distinctive temperament, almost from birth, and its downright freaky sometimes to see it as they grow up, how consistent they remain.

Children are animals and the process of raising them is the process of teaching them to control the animal impulses they were born with and civilization.

This "cult" of the pure innocent child is bullshit, unadulterated crap, and you ignore that at your peril.

[mopinko]

69. i'm not forcing anything on anyone

this is a message board. people come here voluntarily to discuss things. i have my opinion. you are free to ignore it. you are the one being a hypocrite, accusing me of forcing people to do whatever it is you think i have the impact to force on them. grow up.

[bettyellen]

56. but the worst parents give up and don't exercise any control

and you're right in this much, it's a total fluke when their kids come out okay.
if a kid gets a sense it's okay to go apeshit, they often will, and i blame both the parents.

[Thirtieschild]

59. you're right on

I have four kids (all grown) and I can see in the adult qualities that I saw in the crib. One of my fascinations with genealogy is tracking various traits through the generations.

I've often thought I'd like to write an essay called "They Still Blame It on Eve" - religion blamed sin on Eve for eating the apple, and psychology played the same tune, blaming problems on the mother.

[mopinko]

70. the complexity of genetic behavior.

people don't like to hear this stuff, it strikes at their illusion of control, and free will.
but ya know, i have working dogs. by definition a working dog has complicated genetically defined behavior. they need refining, and training to be effective, but they cannot learn what they do not bring with them. some individuals will have a higher level of drive and competance than others. hunting with their mothers helps hone their skills. but few will show no sign of what they are bred to do, or be able to be trained out of it. i have rat terriers. they are bred not only to chase rats, mice, etc, they are bred to ignore chickens and other farm birds. a jack russell is equally interested in birds and rodents. you cannot train them otherwise. and you look around at other animals, and you will see many examples that are far more complex.
acting in a pack, picking on weaklings, is baby stuff. it is wide spread in many species, from wolves to parrots. to think that these kids learned it from their moms is just nuts. to sneer about it, and point fingers is just ignorant and nasty.
we are animals. we can only be animals. you can tweak the knobs of human behavior with good or bad environment, of which parenting skills is a part. but you are dreaming if you think that all flaws in children can be traced back to actions of their mothers.

[moc]

15. "It's not nature OR nurture...

It's the nurture OF nature."

My favorite quote from the parenting literature. Although I agree with you that it's more complex that many would suggest, I believe the shaping of nature by nurture is more than just "around the edges."

[mopinko]

20. your kids must be young.

willful and intentional parenting is a small part of shaping people. what happens in your life that you have little or no control over is another part. there is some malleability in human nature, but they are born who they are, and pass all your parenting through their individual personalities. but in the end, you really only think you are shaping them, and you are usually shaping them into something that you did not intend.
i really object to making moms the scapegoat for human nature.

[moc]

24. I am speaking not based on my experience as a mother but

from my more than 15 years of experience as a researcher in the area of developmental risk and resilience, specifically, how risk factors at the individual level, family level, as well as society level interact to determine the developmental trajectories of children from infancy to adulthood.

I agree with you that it is inappropriate to scapegoat mothers. However, your view that some children are inherently bad is simplistic, to say the least.

[mopinko]

28. i do not mean to say that

parenting does not affect children at all. just that it cannot influence them out of human nature. which is brutish and violent. it is also many other things. we have an amazing capacity for love, and co-operation. i mentioned in another thread today that i find it amazing that we evolved out of having fur. to me that implies that skin to skin contact was more valuable than staying warm. amazing.
obviously, you can destroy a child. obviously, you can pour your entire life into a child, and feed a prodigy. you can starve a child, or stuff them. but they are almost certainly going to grow up to be between 5 and 7 feet tall.
but really, the mom bashing was my main point. it is an amazingly accepted version of misogyny here.

[moc]

35. I understand where you are coming from. You might find this of interest.

This is a book on social aggression in girls that was written by a good friend of mine.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1572308664/qid=1137605103/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-6205220-1142313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

You can read the first several pages of the book. I think a lot of it (i.e., aggression) has it's roots in the messages we give children regarding how to manage negative emotions like anger.

I won't go as far as to say that the core of human nature is brutish and violent. However, I think there are some in born temperamental characteristics that some children are born with that make it more difficult for them to develop the means for self regulation of negative emotions and also makes it more difficult for parenting to shape their behavior in prosocial ways.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. forgive me for personalizing this Mopinko-

but I believe you are looking at this through a lens that isn't exactly 'clear'-
And PLEASE- do not see this as a 'dis'-

Are parents, very often Moms scapegoated? hell yes- how many of us women say "Oh god!!! i sound just like my mother AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

i'm one- but my mother wasn't your 'typical' mother. And, indeed, if i was acting like my mom, my children wouldn't be in my custody.

I believe that YES, we do have 'animal instincts'- hit back- me first- I want- It is all about me-

In some people those 'instincts' are more pronounced than others- but the work of those who NURTURE children, in ANY capacity- (parent, guardian, teacher, mentor, relative, friend) is to teach children to behave in ways that they desire others to behave towards them. If you don't like to be hit, dont hit- If you hate it when people gang up on you- don't join the 'gang' and even come to the aid of the 'underdog'- If you want to be treated with kindness and respect, treat others that way. Want forgiveness? Stop holding grudges.
Don't expect things from others, you aren't willing to live yourself.

Rather than punishing kids, from the START- encourage the positive- be patient and honest and clear.
Do as I DO- I've often made mistakes as the 'MOM' and when I'm wrong, I apologize, explain how I came to see my mistake, and ask for forgiveness- NO EXCUSES- explanations? yes indeed- but no excuses, and the only promise I make is to do my best next time around-

Kids DO 'model' the behavour they are around- and kids often act out for reasons that they don't understand, or like, but it is often the only way to get notice.

INDEED- there ARE exceptions to this- There are biological reasons why some people are impulsive, and who distance themselves from others, who act out, and bring themselves and those around them great grief- To 'blame' MOM or anyone else- INCLUDING the 'kid' for that is not only unfair- it is downright CRUEL- adding insult to injury.

I hear you Mo- and I understand your frustration and hurt- But nurture is indeed a very important part of how most humans turn out- Those of us who have been nurtured poorly- have to work NOT to mimic what we've been taught -(my bumper sticker says "Mean People Produce Little Mean People") And I've spent my life trying to prove that wrong.

And others, who have nurtured with patience, structure, reason, and diligence, and whose children rebel, or struggle against this world, haven't done a 'bad job'- they have been up against a challenge that no one could meet. And the best they can do, is to keep on loving, as best you can, and to acknowledge that is ISN'T 'you' or 'your child'- It is a malfunction in the body- as hard as that is for people to believe- our brains are organs, and when they mis-function, it is often seen as willful misbehaviour or poor parenting- neither of which is true.

peace,
Blu

[Xithras]

68. Mopinko, you're right in a way, but you're missing one important point.

It's true that much of a childs personality is beyond the control of the parent and is determined by genetic forces we don't yet understand completely, but to say that a parent has little influence is missing one major point. We can help to determine WHERE their personality is focused. An child who is constantly angry at things might become a criminal by striking out, or he might become a powerful advocate for the oppressed by focusing his anger on injustices. A brooding child may become suicidal and depressed, or she might become a great writer or poet. A deep thinking intelligent child might invent warp drive or cure cancer, or his intelligence could be focused on gaining power and exterminating his enemies.

You are right in the sense that a childs basic personality and the way they look at the world is largely beyond our control, but you're ignoring the fact that we, more than anyone else, can shape the way they focus and direct their personalities. The role of a parent, possibly our most important role, is to find an outlet for our children that fits their personality and gives them purpose. A child without guidance will often follow the path of least resistance and end up in a detrimental lifestyle. We have to steer them to a different path, show them a more appealing one, and help to keep them on it.

[Bellamia]

21. Bet good money?

Well, I think you'd lose that one. There IS an inherent TENDANCY to "violent" or un-sociable behavior; its our shadow side, and one job of parents is to play that down and encourage more positive behavior. So, no, all bullying children do not have an anti-social mother at home.

[AZBlue]

75. Not necessarily.

They may just have a parent or parents who don't pay enough attention to their child's behavior. Or, they haven't been given enough self-esteem - bullies are mean because they are insecure. Some of the behavior can be learned but some of it just happens as a result of children's insecurities and what they have to go through when they grow up coupled with not having supportive parent(s).

[Strong Atheist]

11. Agreed. Children are brutish and selfish, till taught

otherwise.

[mopinko]

16. humans are brutish and selfish

all of us are from time to time. some are more than others. but all of us are when our backs are to the wall. that is why we are the dominant species on the planet. hopefully, we are on our way to evolving out of that. although the last 5 years has probably pushed that make a millennium or so.

[Strong Atheist]

25. Agreed. nt.

[mondo joe]

30. Humans are self interested, which is not the same as brutish or

selfish. Those are simply two of many ways that humans can carry out their self interest.

[moc]

17. I don't think the other extreme (as you paint it) is correct either.

There has been some interesting research that has demonstrated the complex interaction between nature and nurture.

For example, one study I recall followed children who were born to schizophrenic mothers who were adopted from birth. The long term psychological status of the children depended on the environment in which they were raised. These children who were raised in supportive, nurturing homes did not have rates of psychological illness as adults that were any higher than the rest of the population. In contrast, those children who were raised in dysfunctional homes had serious mental illness rates many times higher than the rest of the population.

Genetics may load the bullet, but environment pulls the trigger.

[mondo joe]

27. Baloney. We are self interested at our core.

That can manifest as violence. It can manifest as cooperation. It can take many forms.

[mopinko]

29. see # 28, but

the question was about vicious behavior.
at any rate. violence has served the human animal very well.

[mondo joe]

32. Violence has served, as has compassion, as has cooperation.

You sound too hurt or angry to look at this critically.

There are many tools at human disposal.

[mopinko]

34. they were not the subject of the discussion

that is all. i agree with you completely. i was not saying "we are fated to war and evil by our nature". we are amazing creatures, capable of an amazing array of things. violence is most certainly a prominent one. that is all.

[mondo joe]

41. Don't blame the topic on your choice to ignore the rest of the range

of tools, please. You made your own choice to focus on "brutes" and "violence".

[Doctor_J]

31. Almost everyone in prison for violence was a victim early in life

It's more than 90%, IIRC. Virtually all of them were abused as children.

[spuddonna]

33. I think we underestimate the concept of 'mob thinking' in cases like this

I'm not talking 'mafia mob' - just a mob of people. When people (children or adults) group together they will often defer their individual moral judgment to the alpha in a group. This can happen in animals and people.

I remember my mother passing on a story that happened to her father. My grandfather was at a bus stop with five other men waiting for the bus to arrive. It was early morning and it was raining. A little boy in a yellow slicker was walking down the hill toward them. The men at the bus stop watched in horror as a pack of dogs came around from behind the little boy and attacked him. The men at the bus stop ran to the little boy and beat back the dogs, but the thing that disturbed my grandfather the most was that he knew some of these dogs. They were neighbors dogs who he'd never seen behave badly before. He warned my mom and her brothers and sisters to beware the dogs when they traveled in a pack, but also used it as a lesson in behavior and warned them all to 'not join the other dogs on the attack'.

It is much easier to get people to break their own personal code of ethics when you have a group of muscle behind you. What we need to teach our children is that instead of standing by passively, when they see this type of behavior, if enough children stand together to say "No!" to the aggressors, it will not persist. Or at least, it lets the aggressors know they cannot commit their crimes without some consequence.

Kinda reminds me of a little board I post at... ;)

[mopinko]

36. ok, this is a very useful behavior.

it allowed early humans to control their environment through rallying group behavior. violence has served humans well. we are humans because of it. we can hope to evolve out of it. but we need to see it for what it is. it is not abberance. it is the most valuable tool ever developed. our intelligence and amazing developments have allowed modern humans to try to rise above this. but let us recognize the value that it still has in many situations. recognize why it attracts people. we need it still. we keep trying to get people to take to the streets to stop bush. we are calling on that same instinct. we want a more evolved version of it, of course. but you know there have been many calls here to grab the pitchforks. it is who we are.

[spuddonna]

42. Oh, I agree, but without the balance of intelligence and reason...

any mob has the potential to turn into a book burning Nazi youth rally!

But you understand I'm not saying we're the ones bullying; I'm equating us with the small group of people that are yelling, "Stop the bullying!" Maybe I need to re-read my post...

[Marie26]

52. Mob rule is a scary thing

I agree that this is a big factor. Those little girls probably would never do something like that on their own, but once a "group" starts, it's much easier to join in. There have been numerous studies done on this & it's sort of scary how quickly people will abdicate their own values or principles once a "mob" or authority figure changes the rules.

[Marie26]

50. Human beings are inherently violent. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

66. No, HUMANS are inherently violent.

And the behaviour described above is universal among social primates toward those who are seen as outcast or not members of the group doing the bullying and ostracising. The majority of violent tendencies come from millions of years' evolutionary heritage which a thin veneer of civilisation, manners and education serves to (sometimes) hold in check.

[atommom]

2. Good piece! It sounds like a good program. nt

[sweetheart]

10. More children need handguns... clearly

This will fix the situation using republican darwinism, and
help solve the population growth problem as well.

Children are like seeds. It is the ground, the soil and
the light that turns violence. What endemic media violence
surrounds us that even if you've none yourself, it comes in
through the walls, from the freeway and the mall, the constat
violence of people in a zero-sum thuggish street culture of
brazen exhibitionism... of zero sum undressing sexy tight
bodies until the public has counted the hairs on your navel
and made a website to your toe nail polish.

[CornField]

19. Here

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_423.shtml

Religion and child abuse, fundamentalism and politics, Justice Sunday III and Pastor Latham
By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and an internationally renowned biologist. His recent BBC series -- "The God Delusion," "The Root of All Evil," "The Virus of Faith" -- made the point about organized religion and child abuse.

Dr. Dawkins has repeatedly warned that U.S. evangelicals represent "Christian fascism" and "an American Taliban" that seeks to emulate and enforce "The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist." Fear of this curmudgeonly "God" is embedded into children's psyche: beware the bogeyman who watches everything you do and just looks for ways to punish you in the most horrific ways.

(much more via link)

------

I haven't been able to find a local airing of the BBC pieces mentioned, but I really want to view them.

[mondo joe]

26. 10 year old kids are FAR from just what's "inherent".

Their parents have already done their work.

[mopinko]

37. phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny

do you believe in the theory of evolution? it says that the development of the individual recreates the development of the species. children are the embodiment of our ape-man past. babies are nothing but a bundle of instincts, shaped like apes, and picking things up with their toes. 10 is half way to whatever advancement we have made as a species. their parents have very limited influence.

[mondo joe]

39. Don't toss out amateurish evolution bumper stickers, please.

Especially if you're going to use words like "ape-man".

By the time a person is 10 they've had their fill of whatever role nurtuer plays, so you're not exactly studying a "clean" specimen.

[Ron Green]

38. My take: There are only Love and Fear.

Fear is natural, animal, and permanent, as long as we're on this mortal and violent plane.

Love is God, or whatever you want to call it, and is found through giving to other people (maybe all living things.)

We will constantly vibrate between love and fear; what has been called "self interest" in this thread can be either, depending on what "self" is interested: the differentiated and isolated ego self, or the universal and holy true self. They are both here with us, all the time. Children learn to make sense of the violent temporary world first with the "ego" self, and as they go through life the hope is that they will learn to engage the "true" self more and more.

[Marie26]

54. I like that idea! nt

[Akoto]

40. My own experience with this issue.

I'm 20 now, about to turn 21. During elementary school, I was very popular and outgoing. That changed when I moved on up to middle school.

I've always been the kind of kid who sticks out in a crowd. I was slight, I (used to) have curly hair, freckles, kinda pale, tall. Bookworm/computer nerd. Kids were really, really harsh. It became so bad at times that I would fake being sick just to avoid going to school. This was an overwhelming change for me, having always been an extremely nice and well-received individual beforehand.

By high school, I had developed an anxiety disorder and simply could not continue going to school. It was literally making me physically ill and there were times when I'd just cry at night over it. My parents mercifully withdrew me from the public system, and I completed my education at a community college. You might say that I entered into the adult world a bit early, as most of my peers were quite a bit older and far more amiable!

Some might say that I was way too thin-skinned, but this kind of constant bullying can really do harm to people. I'm now (mostly) grown up, and I take pride in the fact that I'm different. I understand that the opinions of other people really have no bearing on how I should live. Still though, I struggle with the disorder. It can be hard to go out, and I'm really uncomfortable in crowded places.

[spuddonna]

45. I feel for you...

I hated school for the same reasons... and would often fake illness to avoid going too. You are not alone in this. (And I would have been so happy to go to community college! Your parents sound like great people!)

I think many schools are trying to address the issue of bullying earlier. I have (so far) been impressed with how my kids' school has cracked down on bullying behaviors. We'll see how well the system works once they hit middle school...

[JCMach1]

48. Post #47 my daughter experienced similar problems

It is really taking some time to get over it as well.

[Xithras]

43. Humans are instinctual creatures, society is a learned behavior.

It's the Lord of the Flies conundrum. If left to their own devices without any outside influence, children will revert to the only behavioral template that they have...the pack mentality that dominated our ancient (and in some areas, not so ancient) forebears. Like all mammals, we have an instinctual desire to have a pack leader, to define a territory, and to produce as many offspring as possible.

The trappings of civilization have been developed over the past 10,000 years as a way to subjugate our instincts and impose a social order for the benefit of the group. We ignore our basic animal instincts because they are detrimental to our well being, and replace them with a learned behavior that offers a "better way".

The problem with children is that they're still learning that better way. That's why we call them children...they do not yet contain the knowledge or the social training needed to ignore their instinctual behaviors and override them with the more cooperative, inclusive behaviors favored by modern humanity. We call their behavior "nasty" when it manifests itself like this, but it's simply instinctual response.

One of the big problems I have with these anti-teasing programs is that they typically emphasize punishment or ostracism over intervention. These kids don't tease to be cruel, they tease to establish their social dominance because they haven't yet learned the "better way". The proper way to deal with teasers is through intervention and intensive education.

[mondo joe]

46. Society is just our insincts codified.

Society is just our nature codified. It didn't plop down onto us from some external source.

Our desire to cooperate is just as instinctive as our desire to be violent.

Children are simply not fully developed humans.

[patcox2]

51. Society is an invention, a technology, just like physical artifacts

Just as you teach a child to read (its not an instinct) you must teach a child the rules of your society.

Some societys are better at things than others. Some societys are unable to develop because they never invent mechanisms for succesful collective cooperation, for example, or stable government.

"Society" (its not one thing, there are many different societies) develop naturally, they are not a deliberate invention, but nevertheless they are a technology, not an innate part of our nature, otherwise they'd all be the same.

[mondo joe]

55. Society is OUR invention - hence it is human nature codified.

And by and large they are the same -- there are deviations, but all human societies are much more alike than they are dissimilar.

[Xithras]

57. Yes and no.

Cooperation is certainly instinctual to most mammals, including humans. Both wolves and chimpanzees, like humans, display a remarkable ability to work as a group for the betterment of the whole, both hunting as groups, fighting as groups, and raising young in groups. This type of cooperation is instinctual because it helped our ancient mammalian ancestors survive.

But just because cooperation is instinctual human nature doesn't mean that other aspects of society are. Wolves and chimpanzees, just like uneducated humans, display ferocious territorialism, bully and kill opponents to establish their place in the social hierarchy, and are xenophobic of those from other areas or groups. Unlike those animals, we have learned (slowly, over thousands of years) that inclusiveness, discussion, and equality are the better path for society. These are behaviors that run counter to our biological programming, but our biological programming is unique in that we have the ability to reason, to examine our own instincts and determine when they are flawed. Still, this is a learned behavior, not an instinctive one.

[mondo joe]

58. I think you've drawn a false distinction between what is native and

what is learned.

Our "education" is just the post-utero development of our nature. Just as cats teach kittens to hunt (building on their instinct to do so), so are we taught communication, etc, building on our instincts.

We are our only teachers. If we have a learned behavior it's because we, naturally, came up with it.

[Xithras]

60. Not simply development, expansion.

But arguing that society is an instinctual creation because our instinct lead to its creation doesn't hold up. We could just as easily argue that human creations like nuclear reactors and dam projects are natural because we developed them using our natural gift of inventiveness and reason.

The distinction is between the behaviors provided via our genetic instinct, and the behaviors we have developed over thousands of years of reasoning and learning. Nature may have provided us with the basic underpinnings of society (a desire for cooperation) and the ability to reason, but it also provided us with a lot of baggage thanks to instincts that were programmed in hundreds of thousands of years ago. When our ancient protohuman ancestors were wandering the African plains hundreds of millenia ago, those "nasty" behaviors kept them alive and allowed them to propagate their genes. The instincts they passed down didn't just vanish because we don't need them anymore, we willingly suppress them through training and societal pressure.

10,000 years ago, Ug the caveman saw that Glug the caveman had created a better spear, and killed him to take it. His instinctive desire for social dominance took precedence. Two caves over, Hop the caveman saw Ooga the caveman create a better spear and had a different idea. Hop asked Ooga to make him one too. Since Ooga made him one, everyone else in the cave asked too, and soon they all had better spears. When Hops cave and Ugs cave fought over the local hunting ground a month later, Oogas cave won because they all had better spears, where Ugs cave only had one. The inefficient combative society was destroyed and replaced with the slightly more cooperative one. THIS is how society and civilization got its start, not some genetic programming. It was the creation of human beings using reason to determine that their instinctual behaviors were detrimental to their society.

At the core, I think we basically agree with each other. The crux of the argument, however, is that behavior like bullying and teasing is simply a realization of our instinctual behaviors. Instinctually, there is no perceived group benefit to NOT teasing, so their is no genetic impulse to cooperate on the schoolyard. If the target of the teasing isn't perceived as being a benefit to the child's "group", or is seen as belonging to another group, the instinctive desire to establish a social pecking order takes over. Children (and Republicans) do this because they haven't yet been taught how to include people into their group, and haven't been taught the more abstract and intangible benefits that can result from including different types of people in your groups.

BTW, it's interesting to note that primitive societies don't begin a child's education with facts and numbers the way we do. Typically, they begin by teaching the social aspects of living in a tribe or group FIRST. They are educated about their responsibilities to the tribe and to the group. Learning more complex subject doesn't usually even begin until the child is fully established as a well behaving member of their society.

Contrast this to western cultures, where we take young children with little practical experience in social situations, who are almost entirely instinctual in response, and shove them into a classroom to learn facts and figures. Behaviorally they react from more of an emotional and instinctual level than an educated social one. Children are typically in an educational environment for years before we really begin to work on their social and behavioral skills, broach the subjects of inclusiveness, and teach them to cooperate in large groups. Unfortunately, by that time, many behavioral patterns have already been set. I would say that this is more a flaw in the system than a behavioral issue with the kids.

[patcox2]

63. Just to throw some irony into it,

Teasing those who are different may help the group be more cohesive and thus advance cooperative behaviors.

But you are right nevertheless.

Yes we are social creatures, but that does not mean that any given complex modern society is instinctive, instinct makes people want to live in groups, the society determines the rules for HOW we live in those groups.

[JCMach1]

47. MY daughter was bullied badly in a UAE school here last year

She is 9, physically beautiful, intelligent, and talented (she sings like an angel)...

However, with the help of some ring-leaders, the boys and girls of her school (largely British and mixed western expats) tormented to the point she was reacting violently and would come home crying every day.

This year we got her out of that school. She is now in a school with largely UAE Nationals and Pakistani students. Also, for her age group, boys and girls are taught separately. Without the bullying she is thriving and making friends.

[yodermon]

61. Everyone on this thread

should go read "Why They Kill:The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist" by Richard Rhodes.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375702482/sr=1-1/qid=1137613896/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1120013-9538369?%5Fencoding=UTF8

His thesis: Murderers and other violent criminals were "violentized" earlier in life, usually by their primary caregivers, and usually as children. All murderers. This reduces to the following theorem: "If person commits a murder, THEN they MUST have been violentized earlier in life." Or more plainly: "All murderers have been abused". (Note that this is NOT the same as the converse: "if a person is abused, then they will commit murder." Some critics tend to claim that THAT is what Rhodes is arguing, which he is not.)

While violent crime is a far cry from schoolyard bullying (well, we hope), it should be obvious to most progressives that such behavior is learned - modeled by another, and reinforced when performed. Any "innate" violent tendencies can be wholly, wholly mitigated by nuturing and helping parenting.

This is a huge burden on parents however, especially the over-worked, under-paid, single, female(usu.) variety. One should never infer "blame" or "misogyny" when observing that a parent may not have the resrouces at her disposal - be they internal or external - to be a model, nurturing, helping-mode parent. We are ALL a product of our environments -- the past that still lives in our head, and the present that stresses us out.

If you blame a parent for poor parenting, you are still blaming a victim.

I'd prefer to eschew a blame-based discourse altogether, but maybe that's just me.

[patcox2]

64. Richard Rhodes is not a working sociologist or a criminologist.

He is a writer of popular science nonfiction and novels. Find one peer-reviewed work of real scholarship by him, I couldn't. His "theory" is utter crap.

[yodermon]

67. ad hominem and appeal-to-authority noted.

Please illustrate a disproof of his "crappy" theory.
Never mind, fuck Richard Rhodes. I'll take ownership of the theory.

I assert that there are no murderers or violent criminals that were NOT violently abused in childhood.

I admit this is hard to disprove, because you cannot possibly know every minute of every murderer's early life, and you'd have to rely on self-reporting evidence and/or testimony from the primary caregivers themselves. ("Oh but he was such a nice boy, I have no idea why he shot up the school! We never even spanked him" etc) There is compelling research out there though:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/159/4/689-a

Base Instincts: What Makes Killers Kill
By Jonathan H. Pincus, M.D. New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 2001, 239 pp., $25.95.
LEO UZYCH, J.D., M.P.H.
Wallingford, Pa.

The true cause, or causes, of violent behavior and other behavioral and cognitive disorders is an area rife with contentiousness, nebulousness, and intellectual disharmony. In this powerfully absorbing book, neurologist Jonathan Pincus strives assiduously to penetrate the thick haze enshrouding violence by forthrightly postulating a theory purporting to explicate its etiology. According to his theory, childhood abuse, including physical and/or sexual abuse, causes the violent urge, and neurological deficits and psychiatric diseases affecting the brain, particularly paranoia, untether restraints on the urge.

Of these elements, childhood abuse is the most important one in Pincus’s view, as well as the one most amenable to correction. Thought of metaphorically, childhood abuse is a cask that needs only a spark (in the form of neurological disturbance and/or paranoid thinking) to ignite it into a great conflagration unleashing forces of violent criminality.

Pincus is no stranger to the subject of violent crime. A neurology professor and inveterate writer, during the past 25 years he has neurologically examined about 150 murderers; slightly lurid details of some of the crimes perpetrated by these persons are recounted in the book. Pincus is an unusually good writer, possessed, as well, of great erudition. Indeed, his intellectual rigor, passion, and energy are practically palpable to the engrossed reader.

[patcox2]

72. Appeal to authority is also known as "science,"

Which considers a theory to be "proven" when a consensus develops among the majority of scientists working in that field.

Sorry you don't like science.

[Z_I_Peevey]

73. The theory is Lonnie Athens'.

Richard Rhodes recounts the theory in "Why They Kill," something of a biography/sociology hybrid. But Athens is the author of the "violentization" theory.

[Z_I_Peevey]

65. I read this book.

And there is more to the violentization process than abuse. Abuse is only one of several steps that lead to a "successful" violentization. Although brutalization, the first step, often comes at the hands of parents, the remaining steps are initiated by the offender.

[patcox2]

74. Its the difference between "but for" cause and proximate cause.

First of all, this guy's definition af abuse or brutalization in childhood is wide enough to encompass any discipline or harsh words, by his definition every child on earth has been brutalized.

And the researcher who forms the basis of this book, a researcher not taken seriously by peers within his field, was himself abused. People who fall prey to the cult of victimhood often project it on anyone and everyone, we're all victims.

Humans are aggressive self-asserting beasts. Every child and every person will experience another human in their life being aggressive, verbally, physically, emotionally. I refuse to say that makes them victims, because that would make us all basically victims of life.

There is a lot of shit in life, suffering shit doesn't make you a victim, it makes you alive.

[mopinko]

71. that's just nuts.

just in the simple, black and white of it. there are people who become violent after suffering brain damage that may or may not have anything to do with child abuse. there are many, many well loved and nurture children who nonetheless develop mental illness. sorry, that theory does not pass the smell test.

[Patiod]

62. My friend used to clean houses to earn tuition money

The 5-yo daughter of her client was running around the house with a little friend. The friend stepped over the vaccuum cord and said "excuse me" to her. The client's daughter turned around and said to the friend "you don't have to say 'excuse me' to her -- she's just the help.' "

No matter what you say about nature, nurture or peer influence, a comment like that from a 5-year-old is 100% the parent's fault.