Bullying, damaging or helpful?

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

I call BS....and here's why...
I only showed interest in sports ONCE.....back in junior high, I tried out for basketball. I was all set to get into sports until I learned the cost in equipment, uniforms, and travel fees my parents would have to incur just so I could play. I backed out of it right then. Now, during that 6 week period in which I tried out, nothing changed. I was STILL being bullied. So, "adjusting the balances of social power" did nothing for me. THAT is why I call BS on your statement.

Well, sorry to be an asshole but...you didn't make it. At every tryout there's kids who everyone knows have no chance, while the kids themselves are oblivious to their lack of skill. I am not saying that you were one of them, but until you are on the team, proving that you are good, you're situation isn't supposed to change yet because guess what... your not on the team yet!

If he is not on the team then it would be useless to fit in at his own expense, he'd be wasting time and money on that.

Holy Trek, from my experience I have noted that in my breif 17 years and 8 months of life one must stick to group norms in order to have positive reactions within...eh, people. However this also brings the question if you are selling out your true self to avoid negativity. Personally speaking, though in lower educational levels in the US and in Mexico, and in an American High School; I had the bullying problem for multiple reasons.

Here in Mexico, in Preparatoria, I actually have no problems...and I'm a guy who can walk around with a Yuki Nagato t-shirt, I stick solidly to the the stereotype of a "nerd" or "geek" Numer described yet I am free of harm. This gives me multiple assumptions. One: The educational level is more professional. Two: Social groups in Mexico in this institution are more tolerant of the differences between individuals (because they're more mature or because they fear school-related sanctions more?) Three: IDK?

So my advice goes as followed: Do whatever you please as an individual, if you want to conform like Numer suggested, Ok. If you want to be yourself, OK. Do whatever makes you happier and more confortable...granted, you seem pretty normal. I don't see why people pick on you, have you considered the idea people pick on people for the hell of it?

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

I can already tell you how it worked out.....IT DIDN'T. I got a black eye for three weeks after standing up to a bully....he wasn't even bruised.

YOU DID NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH

You can always try a dirty shot, if there is no honor in bullying, then there should be no honor in rsponse, with a shot at the groin. Worked for me once. People always prefer their balls over bullying.

Or if you wish to avoid violence, then avoid your aggresors if possible. Hang around different areas in school. Use alternative exists and enterances.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

So much for seriousness in this issue.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

So much for seriousness in this issue.

You expect seriousness in NSG? Silly person.

Why did I not see this coming...and wait? Why did I decide to be serious now?! I generally babble about otaku-related gibberish in every thread!

[Itanica]

In a way it prepares them for life as a grown up.
There will be noone to shelter them from insults as a grown up. They need to take it on the chin and emerge a stronger person.

Not that I support bullying, though.

[Itanica]

When I saw people getting constantly physically bullied, I would always befriend them and protect them. Needless to say, they didn't get bullied much after that.

I don't care much for verbal bullying, though. Anyone who can't take words on the chin is not ready for the world yet. And god forbid they ever use the internet. Words cannot hurt, I have been called many "hurtful" things throughout my lifetime, but it doesn't matter, because I realise that words cannot damage me.

Physical bullying does hurt;
Words do not.

[Itanica]

When I saw people getting constantly physically bullied, I would always befriend them and protect them. Needless to say, they didn't get bullied much after that.

I don't care much for verbal bullying, though. Anyone who can't take words on the chin is not ready for the world yet. And god forbid they ever use the internet. Words cannot hurt, I have been called many "hurtful" things throughout my lifetime, but it doesn't matter, because I realise that words cannot damage me.

Physical bullying does hurt;
Words do not.

Tell me more about your psychology degrees?

Do you have a psychology degree either? I thought not. Just because I don't have a psychology degree does not mean my opinion is automatically wrong. You don't have one either, so why is yours right - Because it is the more popular opinion?

Only the weak are hurt by words.

[Itanica]

When I saw people getting constantly physically bullied, I would always befriend them and protect them. Needless to say, they didn't get bullied much after that.

I don't care much for verbal bullying, though. Anyone who can't take words on the chin is not ready for the world yet. And god forbid they ever use the internet. Words cannot hurt, I have been called many "hurtful" things throughout my lifetime, but it doesn't matter, because I realise that words cannot damage me.

Physical bullying does hurt;
Words do not.

Care to provide some evidence for that?

<-

And also, the number of people who kill themselves from verbal bullying is so little, that every case is reported. Sure there are those that just shut themselves off from the world, but the number of people who do that as a result of verbal bullying is also small.

More people are unharmed by verbal bullying than those that are - That's evidence that supports my statement. Only the weak are hurt by words.

[Itanica]

Do you have a psychology degree either? I thought not. Just because I don't have a psychology degree does not mean my opinion is automatically wrong. You don't have one either, so why is yours right - Because it is the more popular opinion?

Only the weak are hurt by words.

I was being sarcastic to show that you apparently don't understand the psychological impacts of repeated negative stimuli that are used for a prolonged period of time in a systematic manner.
TL;DR: Words hurt. They can cause major psychological problems that require counseling.

I can just as easily say only the weak allow themselves to be beaten, or stabbed, or bleed. It is not true. You cannot fault the victim for being victimized.

Well that's not true, because when you get stabbed or beaten, nocieptors activate sending a chemical message to your brain, causing you to feel pain. Everyone has these. That is why everyone is hurt from being beaten or stabbed. Pain tolerance is a different thing, though. Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain.
Bleeding happens because when the skin is pierced, the blood is no longer contained and it comes out. Everyone experiences this. Both weak and strong.

Small vibrations in the air, last time I checked, do not walk up to you and beat you, or stab you, or make you bleed. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

Only the weak allow certain tiny vibrations in the air to cause them pain.

[Itanica]

Well that's not true, because when you get stabbed or beaten, nocieptors activate sending a chemical message to your brain, causing you to feel pain. That is why everyone is hurt from being beaten or stabbed. Bleeding happens because when the skin is pierced, the blood is no longer contained and it comes out. Everyone experiences this.

Words, last time I checked, do not walk up to you and beat you, or stab you, or make you bleed. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

Only the weak allow certain vibrations in the air to cause them pain.

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.
This can manifest itself as various neuroses, heightened stress, blood pressure changes, and more.
Everyone experiences this to one degree or another, just as everyone bleeds to one degree or another.

Your degradation of the victims only shows your ignorance to basic psychology.

4 Edits? Tch.
"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

The number of edits has nothing to do with the point I am making. The first three were minor spelling/grammar corrections and the last one was the addition of the last line, if you must know.

"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

Can you read? I said small amounts of pain. Small amount of pain being a prick with a needle, small burn, etc.

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.

If verbal insults are psychological torment to everyone, then why is it that most people who are verbally bullied do not care for it? There is your answer. They are not weak, they are strong, they take it on the chin and get over it.

Only the weak allow certain tiny vibrations in the air to cause them pain.

Hurray for bullying apologists.

Are you trying to say that I am a bully?
No.
I stuck up for people who were getting physically bullied,
I was verbally bullied myself quite extensively when I was young (pre-secondary school). I took it on the chin because I am not weak. And because of that, when I entered secondary school I had emerged a much stronger person.

Only weak people let it bring them down.

[Itanica]

None of your sources explain why not everyone is so "psychologically tormented" and "damaged" from verbal abuse.

Many of the people I know who were verbally bullied, they lead very successful lives now and never suffered from any psychological trauma.
Show me where I said noone suffers from psychological trauma. I said only the weak. And it is true.
As someone who suffered from verbal bullying, I can say that those studies are bullshit. They can throw their scientific terms around as much as they like, but it is obvious that they are not basing their research on talking with people who suffered from it, but rather just their very limited understanding of the human brain.

[Itanica]

None of your sources explain why not everyone is so "psychologically tormented" and "damaged" from verbal abuse.

Many of the people I know who were verbally bullied, they lead very successful lives now and never suffered from any psychological trauma.
Show me where I said noone suffers from psychological trauma. I said only the weak. And it is true.

[citation needed]

I don't understand. You want me to call up several people I hardly talked to and tell them to prove my point for me on some random forum on the internet?
You want me to prove that it is only the weak?

Weak is a term that has different definitions in different scenarios. In this scenario, a weak person is someone who cannot take verbal bullying. Thus, my point is automatically correct as I am defining weak as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. I need no source, it is just my definition.

[Itanica]

None of your sources explain why not everyone is so "psychologically tormented" and "damaged" from verbal abuse.

That you're aware of, that is.

Many of the people I know who were verbally bullied, they lead very successful lives now and never suffered from any psychological trauma.
Show me where I said noone suffers from psychological trauma. I said only the weak. And it is true.

Weakness has nothing to do with it. People can put on facades, and still be feeling terrible inside because of verbal abuse. Just because they show you a 'strong' face means crap.

And you haven't sourced your claims. I sourced mine. We're waiting.

Yes, your sources don't explain why not everyone feels that way. Not everyone is psychologically tormented and damaged from verbal abuse.

And, what the fuck, can you even read? I have said multiple times I suffered from extensive verbal bullying myself - Are you telling me I don't know how I feel?

[Itanica]

I don't understand. You want me to call up several people I hardly talked to and tell them to prove my point for me on some random forum on the internet?

Of course not. That's the anecdotal fallacy.

You want me to prove that it is only the weak?

Yup. Prove it.

Weak is a term that has different definitions in different scenarios. In this scenario, a weak person is someone who cannot take verbal bullying. Thus, my point is automatically correct as I am defining weak as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. I need no source, it is just my definition.

Circular logic is circular.
Ignoring circular illogical posts in 3...2...1...now.

I am just defining a weak person in this context as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. You want me to source that people who can't take verbal bullying are people who can't take verbal bullying? Then you obviously lack intelligence.

[Itanica]

I don't understand. You want me to call up several people I hardly talked to and tell them to prove my point for me on some random forum on the internet?
You want me to prove that it is only the weak?

Then how can you be so sure that they never developed any psychological problems from being bullied? You just admitted you hardly talk to them.

talked
Note that is the past tense. I do talk with them, but not that much. I doubt they'd want to come and prove a point for me on a random site when I'm not that close to them. I am close enough to know that they have very healthy social lives and are very mentally (and physically) healthy.

[Itanica]

I am just defining a weak person in this context as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. You want me to source that people who can't take verbal bullying are people who can't take verbal bullying? Then you obviously lack intelligence.

No. I want you to source something that isn't blatantly circular logic.
I hereby deem you weak, because only the weak call people who suffer from mental abuse 'weak'.

If that's your definition of weak in this scenario, then fine, I am by your definition weak. I don't get what you're trying to prove here.

Yes, your sources don't explain why not everyone feels that way. Not everyone is psychologically tormented and damaged from verbal abuse.

And, what the fuck, can you even read? I have said multiple times I suffered from extensive verbal bullying myself - Are you telling me I don't know how I feel?

Can you read?

I suffered extensive bullying too. I have a successful career, a loving family and yet I did suffer psychological trauma. I am a strong person, yet I was affected by the bullying. Anecdotes, yadda yadda yadda.

We're waiting.

I suffered no psychological trauma. There are thousands, if not millions like me. Why don't you just go and look anywhere on the internet and you'll find that?
See: Any board on 4chan and many people in places such as facebook (any social networking site)

[Itanica]

If that's your definition of weak in this scenario, then fine, I am by your definition weak. I don't get what you're trying to prove here.


I suffered no psychological trauma. There are thousands, if not millions like me. Why don't you just go and look anywhere on the internet and you'll find that?
See: Any board on 4chan and many people in places such as facebook (any social networking site)

4chan? Seriously?

Regardless of how much of a cesspit the site is, real people are still sitting behind their computers there, shockingly. And many of these actual people have stories to tell.

If that's your definition of weak in this scenario, then fine, I am by your definition weak. I don't get what you're trying to prove here.

That your sorry excuse for 'logic' is entirely meaningless, and literally not worth the bytes given to preserving it on this forum.

I suffered no psychological trauma. There are thousands, if not millions like me. Why don't you just go and look anywhere on the internet and you'll find that?
See: Any board on 4chan and many people in places such as facebook (any social networking site)

You cited 4chan? To rebut Psychology Today and Harvard? Lolno.

The feelings of real people is infinitely more reliable than a study made based on not what actual people have felt, but rather a very limited understanding of the human brain.
Also, regardless of what any study says, there are exceptions.

I think, we are going to have to agree that there are many people who are not affected by verbal bullying, just as there are many who are.

[Itanica]

The feelings of real people is infinitely more reliable than a study made based on not what actual people have felt, but rather a very limited understanding of the human brain.
Also, regardless of what any study says, there are exceptions.

I think, we are going to have to agree that there are many people who are not affected by verbal bullying, just as there are many who are. I feel no desire to carry out an argument against someone for several days as I do have better things to do with my time.

Do you know what the anecdotal fallacy is?
You're claiming that somehow, that is an actual rebuttal to scientifically vetted peer reviewed papers carried out by researchers studying, you got it, real people.

Yes, I am aware of what it is. Regardless of that, though, my actual feelings are in fact a valid rebuttal to said scientific papers. I am an actual person, and I am very aware of my own feelings. Thus, I have proved there to be an exception to the scientists' papers as I never suffered psychological trauma from the extensive verbal bullying I suffered.

I shall leave it there - If you want to continue this, we shall do so in TG.

[Itanica]

I feel no desire to carry out an argument against someone for several days as I do have better things to do with my time.

I find myself rather disappointed. First, you never responded to my posts, which I felt had very valid arguments behind them. Then, when all of us other posters dedicate our time and energy to engaging in vigorous intellectual debate with you, you randomly tell us that you have to go, using the very rude words "I have better things to do with my time". I think we all have a right to be a bit upset and insulted by your lack of etiquette, Itanica.

I'm sorry if you find engaging in arguments on a forum thread a great thing to do with your time, unfortunately it is my opinion that it is not. Especially on such a lovely day like this!

Anyhoo, just for you, as you seem to be an intellectual man / woman.

I posted on this a while ago. If your friends weren't damaged by their experiences, it may be because their bullies didn't try hard enough, or because they weren't very good at being bullies.

Anybody you know that isn't palpably scarred by their experiences as victims of bullying probably got lucky. Doesn't mean they're tougher.

That is indeed a valid point, I had not thought of that previously. However, I, myself, was always ganged up on by large groups of bullies who were very "skilled bullies". They had drove several people out of the school etc. Not me, though, I am quite successful and remain unharmed. So whilst your post may hold truth to them, not so much to me.

[Itanica]

Thus, I have proved there to be an exception to the scientists' papers as I never suffered psychological trauma from the extensive verbal bullying I suffered.

I hope you realize that self-diagnosis is virtually the biggest no-no in the history of psychiatry (and, really, virtually any semi-respectable intellectual field). You have a biased viewpoint, and might be too ashamed or lack perspective to acknowledge psychological damage. Only a third party who is trained in psychology, psychiatry, child development, or some other relevant field can tell you whether you've suffered psychological trauma from bullying.

Psychological trauma is not that big of a thing to self diagnose, you know. I had a great social life from the point of the bullying, I always felt happy, etc. So I don't really see how I'm so badly traumatised as many people here seem to claim.

[Itanica]

They can throw their scientific terms around as much as they like, but it is obvious that they are not basing their research on talking with people who suffered from it, but rather just their very limited understanding of the human brain.

In order to reach the conclusion that verbal abuse causes changes in brain structure, any scientist who is worth at least the paper that his/her degree(s) is/are printed on has to show that no other phenomena creates such changes. I.E., they MUST talk to both people who have been verbally abused, and people who haven't been (at least not enough to make a difference), in order to rule out all other possible alternative explanations.

Its called the scientific method. If you came up with some hypothesis A for observed phenomena B, in order to convince the rest of the scientific community that A is the best explanation for B, you must not only show experimental evidence clearly demonstrating (or at the very least, very strongly suggesting) a link, but you must also provide evidence that rules out alternative reasonable explanations C, D, E, F, G, and so on.

Not a facepalm emoticon, damn - You really had me there!

You want a better reply?
I suffered no psychological trauma and led a great life, there is nothing wrong with my head.
Their research is thus not 100% true.

[Itanica]

Psychological trauma is not that big of a thing to self diagnose, you know. I had a great social life from the point of the bullying, I always felt happy, etc. So I don't really see how I'm so badly traumatised as many people here seem to claim.

Self-diagnosis period is a bad idea.
You apparently don't understand the 'fallacy' part of 'anecdotal fallacy', or you wouldn't try to claim your singular instance overrules an entire research project, which never once said that it would happen in all instances.

Then you'll just fall back to your "well, it is my definition" thing, completely ignoring that you've manipulated that definition to fit your own flawed, circular logic.

"People are weak so they're harmed by mental abuse so they're weak."

I never said it completely overrules their project, I said that it shows there is at least one exception to it.
Also I don't get it, you want me to pay to go visit apsychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

Not a facepalm emoticon, damn - You really had me there!

You want a better reply? Fine. I suffered no psychological trauma and led a great life, there is nothing wrong with my head.
Their research is thus not 100% true.

The thing here is that you said 'words' can't cause harm. You were proven wrong on that position.

Yes, I was. I was indeed proved wrong there, I will step down and admit that.

Not a facepalm emoticon, damn - You really had me there!

You want a better reply?
I suffered no psychological trauma and led a great life, there is nothing wrong with my head.
Their research is thus not 100% true.

That's not what their research said. Did you read the links?

The research stated that verbal bullying can leave a significant imprint on the person's brain as it develops. It really did not for me.

Psychological trauma is not that big of a thing to self diagnose, you know. I had a great social life from the point of the bullying, I always felt happy, etc. So I don't really see how I'm so badly traumatised as many people here seem to claim.

Having a social life doesn't mean that you didn't suffer psychological damage from bullying. I was abused as a child, and have been diagnosed with some minor psychological traits associated with my kind of upbringing.

And, nothing you said changes the fact that self-diagnosis is an outrageous no-no. Also, for the record, psychological trauma can be pretty difficult to diagnose. There are psychologists who've spent their entire careers (30+ years) doing academic research on the nature of such traumas. It's a pretty deep and complex subject. I don't think you appreciate its intricacies enough to speak with any real authority on the matter; at least, not as a diagnoser.

I felt nothing wrong with me and even asking people I am close to, it has never been noticed that there has been any form of mental problems with me.
I will say the same to you.
You want me to pay to go visit a psychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

[Itanica]

I never said it completely overrules their project, I said that it shows there is at least one exception to it.
Also I don't get it, you want me to pay to go visit apsychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

1: No, it doesn't, because that's not what the study said.
2: Go for it. I can wait.

That's not what their research said. Did you read the links?

The research stated that verbal bullying can leave a significant imprint on the person's brain as it develops. It really did not for me.

See, that's what their study said. That it can, not that it will 100% of the time have X effect in Y days.
You've created a strawman.

But, hey, you admit words can hurt. And you admit your 'logic' with regards to 'weakness' is circular and contrived.
Sounds like you admit the crucial stuff.[/quote]

prior to the recent study by Martin Teicher and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, taunting and other verbal abuse experienced by middle school children from their peers was not thought to leave a structural imprint on the developing brain. But it does, according to their new study published on-line in advance of print in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

That is not saying that it can, but it will.

And no, why should I go and spend money to prove nothing is wrong with me just so I can prove someone on an internet forum wrong?

[Itanica]

You want me to pay to go visit a psychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

Yes. Because, unless your best friend or mom has a degree in psychology, residencies in medical psychiatry, or some background in child development, neither of them is actually qualified to tell you if you struggle with psychological trauma, because they have not been trained to recognize subtle-yet-crucial markers and symptoms which are signs of an underlying problem.

If you've ever seen Dr. House, it's like that, but less exaggerated. You know how he randomly walks up to people and, based on the way they twitch, "I don't know if you know this, but you have cancer." Again, this is a very exaggerated example, but a doctor/psychologist/specialist is trained to understand and diagnose certain medical conditions will recognize things that ordinary people won't. Our knowledge of diagnosing cancer is limited to "is there a lump there?" Theirs is, I assure you, much more extensive.

Well if your knowledge on diagnosing cancer is just "is there a lump there", fair enough. But not me. If I was going to try and diagnose cancer on myself (As a preliminary to visiting an actual doctor of course), I would take all of the symptoms I know for cancer and try and put them all together to try and form a rough idea.

I probably will visit a psychiatrist at some point in life, but I am fairly confident I suffer from nothing. And if the effects are not visible and not even known to myself, I'm in no hurry.
Anyone who wishes to continue debating with me, take it to TG as this is slowly derailing.

[Itanica]

I felt nothing wrong with me and even asking people I am close to, it has never been noticed that there has been any form of mental problems with me.
I will say the same to you.
You want me to pay to go visit a psychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

How many of those people you asked are psychologists?

If you really want to, then go on ahead, let him/her pick your brains clean. While you're at it, get your brain scanned so that you can prove you have no abnormal brain structures. But, nobody's holding a gun to your head to do so.

It seems that you're being really, really defensive about the subject of there being absolutely no negative effects on your personality/brain structure due to your bullying experience. As I said before, I'm not a professional, but I seem to recall extreme defensiveness to be a sign of denial.

Oh wow. People are naturally defensive - especially males. A great example is when someone calls you ugly over the internet. Even if they had never seen you before, you would get defensive and try and prove you are not ugly. Would it mean you are in denial about being ugly?
Defensiveness is not a sign of denial. It's almost as flawed as the "Only gay people call people gay" argument. It just makes no sense.

Noone likes to be told something is wrong with them, even if they know there is nothing wrong with them.
Even better example, actually.
Someone says you have Downs Syndrome. You know you don't have it, and you try and prove you don't. You get pretty defensive. But you don't actually go and get tested just to prove them wrong, do you? Even if you are not qualified to determine if you have it?