
Bullies can be stopped, but it takes a village - pchristensen
http://www.slate.com/id/2223976/pagenum/all
======
ryanwaggoner
Sorry, but this article is total bullshit. Here's why:

They list four possible responses to your child being bullied, including
standing up to the bully, ignoring and avoiding the bully, involving the
parents of the bully, or involving the teacher/school. They state that these
are all likely to be ineffective.

That said, their problem with kids standing up to bullies isn't that it's
ineffective, though they paint it that way, but rather that your kid probably
won't do so if you tell them to, because if they had the guts to do so, they
wouldn't be targets of bullying in the first place.

Their preferred "solution" is to have a conversation with the child and
brainstorm ideas and strategies, which essentially come down to: a) avoiding
the bully, b) involving the teachers and school. So essentially a mix of two
of the strategies they discounted at the beginning of the article.

No evidence or data is presented to back up any of the points. The author even
invokes mockery of readers with evidence (albeit anecdotal) that standing up
to bullies works.

Feels like we're teaching these kids victimhood and to look to someone else to
get them out of a rough spot, instead of having enough confidence and self-
respect to stand up for themselves.

~~~
tptacek
Whatever else you may have to say about how this is "total bullshit", this
article isn't the standard half-educated reporter writing whatever comes in
their head for The Guardian. Alan Kazdin has more scholar hits in his field
than anyone commenting here has for theirs.

You're right that there's not a lot of data in the article that backs up his
point, but you'll be wrong if you follow that logic to the conclusion you seem
to want to take it to.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I stand by what I wrote. His position may be backed by reams of data and
rigorous scientific study, but this article is bullshit, for three reasons:

1\. None of that data is presented.

2\. He leverages mockery to preemptively discredit people with real-world
experience that disagrees with his position, despite offering no evidence,
experience, or data of his own. Come on, linking to a standard response that
someone who disagrees with him can use to come up with their own formulaic
response? Clear anti-intellectual mockery, and hardly the mark of a rigorous
scholar.

3\. His logical process as presented in this article makes absolutely no
sense, particularly with regard to why telling your kid to stand up for
themselves is a bad idea.

To repeat an analogy I used in another comment: this is like saying that you
shouldn't advise someone whose website just got hacked to secure their app,
because they got hacked because they didn't follow proper security protocol,
and are therefore unlikely to follow your advice.

To accept the article as a well-written and well-argued piece on the proper
response to bullying, just because the author is a leading scholar in his
field is just a bizarre kind of reverse ad hominem.

Edit: reworded a few things

~~~
logjam
You: "No evidence or data is presented to back up any of the points."

Did you even read the article? The authors link to six websites that each
describe research on the subject of bullying. In addition, he specifically
cites comprehensive review books and papers.

You, on the other hand, cite nothing but anecdote and "analogy".

A simple PubMed search on the term "bullying" gives pages of results on the
topic, and I daresay they mostly are consistent with the advice given by the
authors of this paper, and not yours.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
1\. Linking to six websites on the general subject of bullying is hardly a
well-reasoned presentation of research and evidence to support an argument. In
addition, several of these websites specifically contradict the advice of the
author and encourage kids to stand up for themselves in the face of bullying.

2\. The average reader is unlikely to conduct a PubMed search for research and
scholarly works related to the subject of bullying.

3\. I was specifically referring to the lack of evidence to back up the
position that standing up to bullies is rarely effective, not everything in
the article. You're right that this wasn't clear. My mistake.

You seem to have missed completely that I'm not primarily disagreeing with his
position (though I do), but rather with the shallow presentation of that
position.

EDIT: removed a mistaken reference to the Guardian

~~~
tptacek
The article didn't appear in The Guardian. You misread my comment.

I don't understand where you think this argument is going to take you.
Whatever critiques you may have of the way Kazdin has boiled down the huge
volumes of research on this topic for a Slate article, he's not a reporter.
He's the president of the American Psychological Association, a professor at
Yale, and the director of the Yale Parenting Center; he's also written a well-
regarded book on the subject.

You may have a valid argument about what he's saying about bullying, but you
are totally clouding it by attacking his credibility. He has much more
credibility on this subject than you do.

------
mdakin
_The time-honored assumption is that if your child cleans a bully's clock
once...he'll leave your child alone. It would be nice if life worked this
way...but it usually doesn't._

This is inconsistent with my personal experience. I would like to know how the
author drew this conclusion. Granted I might be a special case. For my size
(small) I have always been quite strong/athletic. For my general demeanor
(sweet/calm) I have always had the capacity for fearless action and rage even
when provoked. And despite being generally peaceful and nonviolent I had
martial-arts training from a very young age. I also knew I'd never get into
trouble with my parents for "finising" a fight. (Though starting one would be
a different matter.) (I've never started a physical fight in my entire life.)

In my experience a bully would start by pushing or shoving or punching the
shoulder. Nothing particularly vicious. But a vicious response (bloody or
broken nose, black eye) solved the problem quite fast.

These tactics worked well in the urban scruff in and around Boston where I
grew up in the 80s and 90s. Fights were always one-on-one matters (relative to
a gang attack, multiple-on-one). I don't know if this works in a gang-type
situation.

The author pre-discounts my data-point. Which I think is a bogus tactic. I'd
like to see his data. I admit mine is anecdotal. I bet his is too.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
The author isn't even really making the argument that this won't be effective,
but just that your kid won't do it:

 _One hallmark of a bully is a sophisticated ability to pick victims who won't
put up a fight. When you urge your child to stand up to a bully, you're asking
him to do something that the bully already figured out he was unlikely to do.
That's why the bully picked him in the first place. Bullies tend to choose
victims who are socially withdrawn, seem anxious or fearful, are nervous in
new situations, or have some physical characteristic that might make them more
vulnerable._

What makes me angry is that the author is essentially arguing that the kid
should continue to be vulnerable and passive, rather than stand up for
themselves.

If bullies tend to pick on people who are unlikely to fight back, you _should_
fight back so they'll move on to an easier target.

Analogy: this is like saying that you shouldn't advise someone whose website
just got hacked to secure their app, because they got hacked because they
didn't follow proper security protocol, and are therefore unlikely to follow
your advice.

~~~
mdakin
Agreed. It seems he believes the children have Dweckian fixed/entity mindset.
And that would be a very bad thing for a psychologist to believe.

------
talvisota
Many of the commenters here seem not to understand the setup: when a bullying
"relationship" has been established, it already _has_ become a difficult
issue.

Standing up against a bully works - but only when it is a fair show of balance
of power. Let it be sophisticated or vulgar. If this doesn't happen very soon
after supposed bullying starts, it is probably not going to happen. And if the
resistance works, where is the bullying here?

It can be observed that even in this flow of comments it is not seen that a
shy kid is entitled to life without bullying. By not cutting off the bullying,
you're raising the shy kid into accepting that yeah, he truely is a victim,
and nothing can be done. It's a jungle, live with it. "Civilization" is just a
word, "justice" is a joke, and "human rights" just an invention of a twisted
mind. The only way left to put things back in balance for a tormented kid is
by getting a gun and showing everybody the exact reason why everybody should
have some kind of elementary respect to each other.

People, kids, do have different temperaments. The mind is not tabula rasa. You
can't tell a shy kid "stand up and show them" and expect it to happen or have
any effect.

It is completely useless to offer solutions which apply only to those who
don't really have problems.

------
fauigerzigerk
That's a very strange account of how bullying works. The impression I get from
what people tell me and situations I have witnessed is that the lonely male
bully described here is a very rare exception.

The typical situation is a group of people led by a smaller sub-group acting
against an individual in pretty obvious ways. The victim is sidelined and
ridiculed openly so everybody knows. Teachers always know.

The authors describe the bully as some kind of genius who always selects the
right victims and always chooses occasions wisely. That's complete nonsense.

People who become victims are completely random. Take any closed situation
where people can't leave at will, like schools, military camps, prisons, the
workplace, and anyone can be made a victim. No need for the bullies to choose
wisely.

There's just no way anyone can defend himself against a socially dominant
group who decides to bully them. The only right way to react is to leave
instantly. Victims can be harmed for life if left in a situation like that.
That's what I learned from someone very close to me who was a victim of
bullying and researched the whole thing extensively later.

If you have kids who are being bullied, just take them away from the bullies
immediately!

~~~
philwelch
"People who become victims are completely random. Take any closed situation
where people can't leave at will, like schools, military camps, prisons, the
workplace, and anyone can be made a victim. No need for the bullies to choose
wisely."

This is patently untrue: it's always some particular subgroup that's bullied.
School bullies usually target smaller kids, "nerdy" kids, or unpopular kids
with poor social skills. Prison bullies usually target small, young, white
prisoners who are not members of prison gangs.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I think you are wrong, but I guess we'll need some statistics to resolve that
one.

However, the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with the share of
nerds among the victims. The point is that it's unnecessary to select
particularly weak people because anyone targeted by a determined group of
bullies becomes weak and most of the time there's no way to turn the situation
around.

It's a mistake to think that anyone could be strong enough to do that, nerd or
not.

~~~
philwelch
Did I ever say nerdy schoolboys and white prisoners were particularly weak
people? No. But here's your assertion:

 _People who become victims are completely random._

They're not. People who are gang members don't get bullied in prison because
the other members of their gang will retaliate. Popular kids don't get bullied
in school because their friends will retaliate. And while smaller kids may be
weaker targets than bigger kids, nerds or white prisoners are usually bullied
because the bullies don't like them.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
_Did I ever say nerdy schoolboys and white prisoners were particularly weak
people?_

Yes you did. Nerdy, unpopular with poor social skills, that's what I would
call weak in exactly the social sense that's relevant here.

If you bothered to research this matter you would be surprised how much what
you are saying is a cliche.

I'll concede, though, that the victims are probably not completely random in a
formal statistical sense.

[Edit:] Sorry, our posts crossed. I didn't mean to change mine while you were
replying

~~~
philwelch
"there is a much broader group of people who become victims than most people
think"

True, but if that was your point why didn't you just say it in the first
place? In any social context that has bullies, the bullies predominantly
belong to some social subgroups, and predominately victimize other social
subgroups. Don't make it sound like you're disputing _that_ fact when you're
saying something much more mundane and agreeable.

"that's what I would call weak in exactly the social sense that's relevant
here"

Sorry, I thought you meant weak in the sense of "less able to put up a fight".

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I did say it in the first place but "completely random" was a bit of an
exaggeration (even though part of it is really chance). What I dispute is that
popular, strong, successful, socializing people never become victims or that
they can turn the situation around (short of joining a gang maybe).

They may have friends, but not, for instance, at that new workplace or at that
new school. In many cases it's not the victims' character that makes them
vulnerable.

------
kingkawn
Not saying everyone can do this, but; My grade school friend was being
bullied. He asked people's advice on what to do, they said 'don't be violent,
just talk to an adult, talk to your parents, and they'll help you resolve
this.' He went to his mother, she told him to beat the kid up or learn to live
with being treated like shit. He beat up both the kid and his friends by
himself. I still laugh thinking about it.

~~~
inovica
Great story but it doesn't work for everyone. I actually took this approach
and because I was big enough it worked. My own child has a different
temperament to me and would not do this. The child who goes up against the
bully and loses, ends up being deeper in the cycle of bullying because he
feels powerless. I don't have an answer - as everyone is different - I'm just
pointing out that the above only works for some people

~~~
kingkawn
I did start my story with that same caveat. And I think the moral was that
relying on adults to guide you through this process is not always preferable.

------
mynameishere
Well, I've never been bullied, but if an adult "bullied" me (as an adult) in
any serious way, I would refer him to the police within a matter of minutes.
This is the proper solution. Any assault on a child should be dealt with
legally, and if it means moving a thug to a reform school, then all the
better.

~~~
bobdole2695
Right, because criminalizing the behavior of children just starting to
understand social dynamics isn't a way out of proportion response.

~~~
mynameishere
So...free pass then. Right, carry on.

You say to the thug, in no uncertain terms, "The next time you do XYZ, the
consequences will be a removal from school." And, yes, have the police deal
with it because they are actually equipped for such activity, unlike your
typical teacher.

...and to be clear, I'm talking about instances of actual assault, and not the
vast bulk of things in the category "bullying".

~~~
bobdole2695
The police don't have the authority to remove a kid from school without
jailing them. The school administration is empowered to provide sanctions and
have experience and training in dealing with children. It's a _very_ different
game than the police who deal with adults, using Tasers.

------
ams6110
My son put a quick halt to a bullying situation by responding in kind. Luckily
the school was enlightened enough to consider the matter closed at that point.

~~~
barrkel
Quote from article:

> Some readers will now be eager to share stirring success stories that prove
> standing up to a bully really does work

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yes, because they anticipated people countering their hollow and completely
unfounded advice with real-world experience to the contrary, we should
discount anyone with an opinion based on fact and personal knowledge of the
subject.

~~~
barrkel
I was just pointing out the irony, not trying to prove you wrong.

~~~
berntb
I assumed that you quoted a point from the article: Anecdotal experience isn't
proof of statistical relatedness.

Edit: And about the GP's claim that the author's being incompetent and writing
unfounded advice. Check their jobs at the end of the article. (They might be
incompetent and/or wrong, but they will certainly have _lots_ of relevant data
in published papers!)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I never said anything about them being incompetent. And publishing data in
other unrelated (and unreferenced) publications doesn't make an argument
unfounded. They didn't support this claim in this article, either directly or
indirectly by clearly linking to relevant studies or research.

~~~
berntb
I took the term "hollow and completely unfounded advice" as "incompetent",
since TFA was written by absurdly competent academics -- in their area.

I'm sorry if it upsets you that they didn't give enough references for your
taste, to evaluate your anecdotal experiences.

------
imgabe
It's been a while since I was in school, but I haven't been out so long that
I'd be naive enough to think that a child whose parent is leading a school-
wide crusade against bullying would be LESS of a target for bullies.

~~~
sethg
ISTM that if you're in a school where not-bullying is seen as the crusade of
one individual parent, rather than an issue that _a group of_ concerned
parents and teachers are working on _together_ , then the school culture
already has serious problems.

~~~
imgabe
Almost by definition, bullying is a problem that affects a minority of
students. I'm not saying this to imply that it isn't a serious problem, just
that it's sometimes difficult to get parents involved in _their own_
children's education, let alone involved with an issue that isn't affecting
their kids directly.

------
abecedarius
How hard might it be to catch a bully in the act with a hidden mike or a
friend with a cellphone or some such? That sort of thing was completely
impractical in my day -- I'm not sure what tools kids have now.

~~~
sethg
I suppose it's worth trying, although the victim may not be so keen on having
_his or her own victimization_ recorded for posterity.

I have also heard that among girls, one common form of bullying these days is
to pretend to be the victim's friend long enough to get some embarrassing
confidential information, and then spread that information around. Modern
technology makes that kind of sting a lot easier.

