I am curious: what kind of intepersonal skills (which don’t include using authorities) would you use to deal with a person who is three times as strong as you (and most of people around you), enjoys hurting you (physically), and makes it obvious to others that only you will be hurt (unless someone tries to defend you, in which case they will also be hurt, but it will be a one-time event for them)?
Depending on your answer, my second question would be: If such a situation happened to you tomorrow (and then every day) and you couldn’t avoid it, would you prefer to use only the interpersonal skill, or would you (also) use a threat of authority?
But why would you be singled out this way, and not some other small kid? The explanation probably involves interpersonal skills at some point (I would expect likelihood of being bullied to be more correlated with being weird and friendless and “a pushover” than it is with being weak).
Also, even a small kid should be able to bite really hard, or come up with something foul-smelling that sticks in the hair or something like that—but I don’t think either one of those are what is usually meant by “interpersonal skills” :)
But why would you be singled out this way, and not some other small kid?
Would it be too unrealistic scenario to imagine that I am a best student in the classroom, and the bully is the second best, but he used to be the best one in his previous school, he cannot emotionally accept not being first and when he cannot deal with competition in a fair way, he uses his physical strength as a backup option?
People can also hate you for being good at something, not just for being weak.
even a small kid should be able to bite really hard
Yes, I used this kind of solution, and it worked. It just took me too much time to overcome the taboo about hurting other people (even in self-defense).
Learning to win fights despite a physical development disadvantage is exactly the wrong interpersonal skill to teach.
This does not seem like a claim that is universally true or obvious. If for whatever reason (such as bad judgement, incompetence at parenting or simply lack of resources) you choose to expose your child to one of the many environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous when they are at a physical disadvantage then it is neglectful to not also train them in at least the low hanging fruit with respect to succeeding in that environment.
To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required, and there is no good reason for partial measures.
To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
To avoid losing a thousand fights through the mere presence of a deterrent is a valuable and generalisable lesson. Finding ways to resolve confrontation without fighting is desirable but once again I have to point out that it is not always possible. Children do not get to choose whether or which school they are subjected to and so can not rely on the most important aspects of personal boundaries (those that follow from having the ability to choose situations). If they are forced into an environment where pacifism is a suboptimal survival strategy then forcing pacifism on them for ideological reason is adding insult to injury. Or adding more injury and permanent psychological damage to injury as the case may be.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required,
Taking firearms to school is frowned upon. At least it is in my country, I can’t speak for anywhere else. I also haven’t ever seen either biting or stinkbombs advocated as an optimal fighting strategy for humans.
and there is no good reason for partial measures.
Yes there are. There is a reason not all wars consist of total nuclear obliteration in the opening day of conflict. There is also a reason why comparatively few physical conflicts between individuals, including individuals confined to schoolyards, are fights to the death.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well. If the people who frown upon violence in the school don’t take effective measures to address moderate violence, then they might take effective measures to address serious violence.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Fights are to lesser stakes than annihilation because the outcome is typically less important than existence to both parties. I’m not sure why the minimum required deterrent is better than the maximum possible deterrent.
That said, using weapons that are less likely to attract as much attention from an incompetent school administration while still being sufficient have a cost advantage. I suggest things which are also legitimate educational supplies, like metal or metal-edged rulers, if low-social-cost weapons are desired. As with any weapon, learn to use it effectively before you use it.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well.
That is as it should be. But you do not fix this problem by crippling the victims and still not giving them a way out.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Those things certainly should be illegal and treated as such. Authorities who control such environments and who permit such behaviour are collectively evil. But it is also abhorrent to me to cripple the victims with idealistic morality that doesn’t work in the world in which they live.
Learning to win fights despite a physical development disadvantage is exactly the wrong interpersonal skill to teach.
Is it? I agree it’s probably not the best, but is it worse than having the kid learn that he sucks, that the world is a nasty, unfair place, and that there’s nothing he can do about it?
I am curious: what kind of intepersonal skills (which don’t include using authorities) would you use to deal with a person who is three times as strong as you (and most of people around you), enjoys hurting you (physically), and makes it obvious to others that only you will be hurt (unless someone tries to defend you, in which case they will also be hurt, but it will be a one-time event for them)?
Depending on your answer, my second question would be: If such a situation happened to you tomorrow (and then every day) and you couldn’t avoid it, would you prefer to use only the interpersonal skill, or would you (also) use a threat of authority?
But why would you be singled out this way, and not some other small kid? The explanation probably involves interpersonal skills at some point (I would expect likelihood of being bullied to be more correlated with being weird and friendless and “a pushover” than it is with being weak).
Also, even a small kid should be able to bite really hard, or come up with something foul-smelling that sticks in the hair or something like that—but I don’t think either one of those are what is usually meant by “interpersonal skills” :)
Would it be too unrealistic scenario to imagine that I am a best student in the classroom, and the bully is the second best, but he used to be the best one in his previous school, he cannot emotionally accept not being first and when he cannot deal with competition in a fair way, he uses his physical strength as a backup option?
People can also hate you for being good at something, not just for being weak.
Yes, I used this kind of solution, and it worked. It just took me too much time to overcome the taboo about hurting other people (even in self-defense).
Learning to win fights despite a physical development disadvantage is exactly the wrong interpersonal skill to teach.
This does not seem like a claim that is universally true or obvious. If for whatever reason (such as bad judgement, incompetence at parenting or simply lack of resources) you choose to expose your child to one of the many environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous when they are at a physical disadvantage then it is neglectful to not also train them in at least the low hanging fruit with respect to succeeding in that environment.
To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required, and there is no good reason for partial measures.
To avoid losing a thousand fights through the mere presence of a deterrent is a valuable and generalisable lesson. Finding ways to resolve confrontation without fighting is desirable but once again I have to point out that it is not always possible. Children do not get to choose whether or which school they are subjected to and so can not rely on the most important aspects of personal boundaries (those that follow from having the ability to choose situations). If they are forced into an environment where pacifism is a suboptimal survival strategy then forcing pacifism on them for ideological reason is adding insult to injury. Or adding more injury and permanent psychological damage to injury as the case may be.
Taking firearms to school is frowned upon. At least it is in my country, I can’t speak for anywhere else. I also haven’t ever seen either biting or stinkbombs advocated as an optimal fighting strategy for humans.
Yes there are. There is a reason not all wars consist of total nuclear obliteration in the opening day of conflict. There is also a reason why comparatively few physical conflicts between individuals, including individuals confined to schoolyards, are fights to the death.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well. If the people who frown upon violence in the school don’t take effective measures to address moderate violence, then they might take effective measures to address serious violence.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Fights are to lesser stakes than annihilation because the outcome is typically less important than existence to both parties. I’m not sure why the minimum required deterrent is better than the maximum possible deterrent.
That said, using weapons that are less likely to attract as much attention from an incompetent school administration while still being sufficient have a cost advantage. I suggest things which are also legitimate educational supplies, like metal or metal-edged rulers, if low-social-cost weapons are desired. As with any weapon, learn to use it effectively before you use it.
That is as it should be. But you do not fix this problem by crippling the victims and still not giving them a way out.
Those things certainly should be illegal and treated as such. Authorities who control such environments and who permit such behaviour are collectively evil. But it is also abhorrent to me to cripple the victims with idealistic morality that doesn’t work in the world in which they live.
You’re trying to change the world so as to make one person not be bullied. I’m trying to change the world such that fewer people are bullied.
It bothers me a little bit that our responses both make sense in context but are so different.
Is it? I agree it’s probably not the best, but is it worse than having the kid learn that he sucks, that the world is a nasty, unfair place, and that there’s nothing he can do about it?
I’ll grant that in some cases it might be superior to no intervention, or to teaching acceptance.