NationStates

Thermodolia wrote:

Thunder Place wrote:Brace yourselves, summer is coming.

Summer is already here

When the White Power walkers emerge, with their army of dead ideas.

Didn't know that being a bully was a genetically-inherited trait.

Do you know a single thing about genetics? Or ethics, for that matter?

Bullying is obviously bad, but sterilizing bullies is an utterly stupid suggestion.

what

I... I'm having difficulty finding words to how atrocious I find this idea. Seriously, this belongs in the pile of simple solutions that are 100% wrong.

what would sterilizing them do

No.

Everyte I hear somebody proposing to breed x,y,z group out of existence I get suspicious at the best of times. It never ends well, even when the issue in question is hereditary (eg, not like this one).


As a former victim of serious bullying myself, I say thus is a really bad idea.

Saikaya wrote:what would sterilizing them do

..and when exactly do we do it, if someone was involved with bullying at 5 do we wait until they're 16 or sterilise them then..

Say what you will about the ethics of eugenics, human genetic engineering, human cloning etc, but I think that it is our inevitable future, as the nation that integrates these practices into its society will become so powerful so fast that the rest of the world's nations will have to either adapt or become insignificant specks on the earth. Perhaps we may see the rest of the world gang up on the nation, or the nation becoming militarily agressive too early like Nazi Germany, but due to the laws of probability, it is only a matter of time before a nation powerful enough causes the world to adapt the above practices. Note: My personal beliefs on the morality and ethics of the above are not up for discussion atm. I just want to point out the fact that it is our future.

No, there is no reason to sterilize a bully.

Since being a dick is not really a genetic trait, how about no. Which is nice in my case cause I don't wanna be sterilized.

Longweather wrote:I... I'm having difficulty finding words to how atrocious I find this idea. Seriously, this belongs in the pile of simple solutions that are 100% wrong.

Is it more atrocious than bullying itself ?

Neanderthaland wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Summer is already here

When the White Power walkers emerge, with their army of dead ideas.

Riding on their dead and beaten horses.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkKTY_ZljyU#t=108s

So this scene (but mostly the groin kick at about 108 seconds in) got me thinking; that might make him sterile, and in so doing, reduce the population of bullies in the next generation.

Why aren't we doing this on a larger, more lawful scale, rather than leaving individuals who take the matter into their own hands (or in this case, their own feet) to risk prosecution? Why do we keep relying on ineffective anti-bullying strategies that fight the uphill battle against bullies' very nature when we could be literally cutting off bullying at the source?

No? What sort of stupid ass question is that? Of course they shouldn't. I'd expect that in an Orwell novel.

Send them to the diamond mines.

Wallenburg wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:We don't know that. Why not find out?

Yes, we do. Behavior such as bullying is learned, and developed through personal experiences. Anyone with an elementary grasp on biology understands this.

Aggression can be heritable, predisposing you to adopting aggressive behaviour. One review even states that 50% of the differences in aggression between people is determined by genetic factors.

Noting one line in the paper: "whereas the continuity in proactive aggression was primarily genetically (85%) mediated ". Now, this actually surprised me.

Proactive aggression lies more in line with bullying than reactive aggression. So, maybe this paper is wrong, maybe I read it wrong or maybe everyone should take a moment to reflect on this. Having a "grasp on biology" doesn't mean you needn't look things up anymore. Even professors learn new things every day.

Vassenor wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:We don't know that. Why not find out?

So what genes make someone a bully?

There was at least one study on this. I believe Guo et al made more.

The concept of the "warrior gene" is not novel.

They also raise an interesting point on where the rationale could lie for aggression being genetic:

From the evolutionary point of view, aggressive
behavior is likely to be adaptive. Aggression could aid
securing food and safe resting places, protecting the
young, and obtaining advantage in a reproductive
context. However, not all levels of aggression are
adaptive or equally adaptive. As Edward O. Wilson
(1975, p. 254) pointed out, ‘‘in order to be adaptive it is
enough that aggressive patterns be evoked only under
certain conditions of stress such as those that might
arise during food shortages and periodic high population
densities.’’ A level of aggression adaptive to a
certain set of conditions may not be adaptive to another.
Aggressive behavior adaptive to circumstances
one million years ago, 200 years ago in an agrarian
society, and contemporarily in a digital society is likely
to differ considerably. It is thus possible that some
genetic variants associated with serious and violent
delinquency today could have once had a selective
advantage.

Uh, because bullying is a behavior, not a heritable trait?

Conserative Morality wrote:Uh, because bullying is a behavior, not a heritable trait?

Such an short and absolute statement is, unfortunately, inaccurate to properly describe the heritability of certain behaviour.

Esternial wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Uh, because bullying is a behavior, not a heritable trait?

Such an short and absolute statement is, unfortunately, inaccurate to properly describe the heritability of certain behaviour.

Big difference between aggression and bullying m80

Esternial wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Uh, because bullying is a behavior, not a heritable trait?

Such an short and absolute statement is, unfortunately, inaccurate to properly describe the heritability of certain behaviour.

As much as I respect that you went out of your way to find hard data on the subject the paper you linked is about aggressive behaviour in general, much of which can fall far outside of harmful behaviours such as bullying or violence. Even though it does say that there is a link between genetics and aggression it clearly states that only accounts for about half of the variance in behaviour, it also makes the points that; Firstly not all individuals who meet the genetic (and environmental) conditions will be affected by a predisposition toward aggression, and secondly that environmental interventions could be successful in reducing aggressive behaviour.

So while it explains a lot about the origins of aggressive behaviours, it does not in my opinion at all support the proposition of the OP.

Nova Stephania wrote:

Esternial wrote:Such an short and absolute statement is, unfortunately, inaccurate to properly describe the heritability of certain behaviour.

As much as I respect that you went out of your way to find hard data on the subject the paper you linked is about aggressive behaviour in general, much of which can fall far outside of harmful behaviours such as bullying or violence. Even though it does say that there is a link between genetics and aggression it clearly states that only accounts for about half of the variance in behaviour, it also makes the points that; Firstly not all individuals who meet the genetic (and environmental) conditions will be affected by a predisposition toward aggression, and secondly that environmental interventions could be successful in reducing aggressive behaviour.

So while it explains a lot about the origins of aggressive behaviours, it does not in my opinion at all support the proposition of the OP.

That was never the point I tried to make, and I don't support the OPs radical suggestion. My post addresses the apparent misconception that bullying is something you can only acquire through environmental influences (e.g. how you're raised, interactions with friends, etc.).

It's not just something that can be "taught".

Same goes for conditions like depression. Depression can be "inherited" but appropriate interventions can compensate for such a higher sensitivity.

Nova Stephania wrote:What makes you think bullying is a hereditary trait? Bullies in my experience tend to be troubled people.

Really ? There was a tvshow in the Netherlands a few years back where people who were severely bullied when they were young and still suffered from the consequences confronted their bullies.

The returning theme was that the bullies did barely even remember their victims. They had never mattered to them.
But there was no "the bully himself had a shitty life" pattern.

Esternial wrote:That was never the point I tried to make, and I don't support the OPs radical suggestion. My post addresses the apparent misconception that bullying is something you can only acquire through environmental influences (e.g. how you're raised, interactions with friends, etc.).

It's not just something that can be "taught".

It absolutely is. Aggression does not translate to bullying.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Esternial wrote:Such an short and absolute statement is, unfortunately, inaccurate to properly describe the heritability of certain behaviour.

Big difference between aggression and bullying m80

Aggression is a facet of bullying, so being more predisposed to aggression could make one more likely to engage in bullying.

Other factors certainly play a role, I never denied that, but it's not exclusively "either/or".

Conserative Morality wrote:

Esternial wrote:That was never the point I tried to make, and I don't support the OPs radical suggestion. My post addresses the apparent misconception that bullying is something you can only acquire through environmental influences (e.g. how you're raised, interactions with friends, etc.).

It's not just something that can be "taught".

It absolutely is. Aggression does not translate to bullying.

I suppose that is where we disagree, then, unless you have a source to convince me beyond saying "that's just how it is".

Naturally I'm looking out for sources that follow my line of reasoning, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that there are publications that disagree with my view. I'm currently following the mindset that some (to which degree I don't want to speculate) instances of bullying are the results of an evolutionary adaptation.

This review raised some points I've suspected myself, while also maintaining that it's difficult to absolutely determine, which I also agree with - which some of you apparently do not.

The paper also mentions that interventions can certainly be successful, as Nova Stephania mentioned.

So, I do follow the narrative that bullying is an evolved adaptation, and that there is a plausible genetic origin to some (limited?) extent. The aforementioned review concludes as much, but also raises several interesting questions that have yet to be properly answered. That, in my opinion, would render your statements (e.g. "It absolutely is") absolutely false without proper nuance.

Bullying can be taught, but to what extent? Bullying can be genetic, but to what extent? There's not enough proof to answer both. Maybe me stating that it's genetic and the resounding "no" is a result of the misconception that genetic are somehow absolute and deterministic, which they are absolutely not:

We emphasize that human evolutionary behavioral strategies are not believed to be fixed, unresponsive, genetically pre-determined programs.

For those interested, look up behavioural epigenetics. It hasn't been explicitly mentioned (as far as I noticed, skimming through it) but I suspect it's very relevant indeed.

Hope that at least it incites some of you to shift whatever paradigm you've imagined on the subject to a more grey-field area.