Study Reveals Why "Nerds" Get Bullied
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
At first I thought you were just exaggerating and having a stupid rant.Archemetis said:
But then I checked your profile, Dunstable as in Dunstable near Luton right?
If so I completely understand and offer my sympathies.
EDIT:
This study gives good reasons why a lot of the nerd culture lack social skills and thus the difficulty they have in talking to women.
But I think its bad science to then leap to the conclusion that people bully others because the victims can't hold a conversation.
I think it has more to do with the bully's themselves. This may be why some kids are singled out, but if this problem is "fixed", bully's will just find other reasons. People like that almost need to feel good about themselves. Since they're usually arrogant surly annoying and idiotic, they feel good by belittling others. I'm speaking from... not first hand experience, but I see it everywhere obviously. I just started scaring off verbal bullies with intelligence, and guys that got physical got punched back. They all left me alone pretty quickly. Oh. And humanity sucks. I thought we all knew that by now.
Psychologists/sociologists can find the cures to diseases as easily as you can. I don't know how you can pretend that it's so black and white. Do you know anyone who is studying psychology or sociology at university? Why don't you tell them to try to cure a disease in their dissertation instead of conducting a study on something like this?Douk said:
I think it's much more likely that it's because bullies are pricks. You don't get bullied because you're not cool, you get bullied because you do one thing wrong with the bully and he decides he has to show how much better he is than you. These scientists are idiots, their evidence may be sound for these kids being naturally more antisocial (it's kind of obvious) but to suggest that as a reason for these kids getting bullied is ridiculous because not only does it imply that the bully is in some way being natural but it also is completely ignorant on the REAL causes of bullying.
Anyone who picked on me in gradeschool got punched...by me.
That was back when I knew nothing about appropriate conflict resolution.
That was back when I knew nothing about appropriate conflict resolution.
Daveman said:
This. And also, personally, i've always believed that i have been relativly good at picking up social cues, not brilliant but no worse than other people, yet i am quite nerdy. I think its a mistake to idenditify the causes of nerdyness due to a naturally poor ability to detect social cues, but rather some people are naturally quieter and more reflective than others- Thats just there personality, there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that these people are quiet and more intorverted may mean they are less skilled at reading social cues, but that is just because they do not have to use those skills as much as more extroverted people. The researchers i think are looking at things the wrong way round.
Really though i think it is the bullys themselves whom are the ones who struggle socially.
Most people want us to move past things like bullying people to keep them in line. Some people stick out in ways that encourages them to be picked on by others but you can't only blame them like you can't only blame cake shops for people being fat. Socially awkward people do not cause as many problems as people who use violence to control other people's behavior.
Something like this happened to me (I'm in the UK), well, sort of. I was around 15 and this one guy was pretty much a non-stop bully to me. If you could "graduate" bullying it was probably about a 2 out 5 strength, so it could have been worse, but one day it just got ridiculous. I think someone had floored me so I was on my back, and this guy decided to jump on me. 2hrs later I was in hospital because as he'd jumped on me, he'd landed on my wrist and the doctors said he'd just sprained it. Got called back not long after, and they said they'd reviewed my files and that the injury was worse than they said - He'd actually twisted one of the bones slightly.Nurb said:
The guy got off because "he was bullied himself". Yeah, that's totally excusable behaviour. I was, personally, bullied ever since my first few years at school and I never *ever* lashed out against anyone. Yeah, we all deal with it in different ways but that kid should have been expelled or something.
I think that the understanding of non-verbal cues is only a minuscule piece of the puzzle of alienation that leads to nerdy ways and escapist tendencies.
The inability to understand such cues (alongside other symptoms which are nonetheless similarly associated with stereotypical nerds) is often given a name - Asperger's Syndrome, or more generally, half the spectrum of autism. After all, normally our understanding of other's physical cues is either built-in or rapidly learned at an early age, and only a select number of problems can interfere with that, one of them being an inability to learn these things naturally. I'd suspect that these disorders are far more common in minor forms than their diagnosis is, because it is a very subtle difference that people often decide to call weirdness or oddity.
However, despite the commonality of autism-like disorders, it would be quite mad to decide that this particular problem with cues is the sole cause of the "Nerd factor", or social rejection. What about low initial social status from wealth and ethnic disadvantage, the grief of losing family members at a fragile age, extremely challenging personal or family problems, depression and other mental diseases, and parental neglect? All of these can make a child unable or unwilling to interact with others in a fluid way, leading to more issues and eventually to escapism. There is never just one issue which if solved will improve everything, which is why it's not an easy thing to defuse on a mass scale. Therefore, I must disagree with the title of the article and that of the study, both of which suggest that the "study reveals why 'nerds' get bullied", because the study is clearly not exhaustive enough to reveal all causes.
Similarly, it makes no sense to say that only 10% of students experience bullying in their lifetime. The experience is, by all accounts I've ever read, universal to kids who go to school. That figure is just too low to be believable. I can see that a numerically similar statistic is in the linked article, but it is given with a different meaning, that 10-13% experience rejection. A much more specific experience, but even so, who is kidding themselves that there is anyone who has never experienced the rejection of their peers, let alone that this demographic is the majority of all school-age kids? No child who knows other children, no matter how popular they are, could escape that, plain and simple.
Science is a very good tool for asking questions, but more often than not the results are exaggerated and their meaning is perverted by interpretations of a very subjective nature. Scientists, being under pressure to produce definitive, exhaustive and useful results, may even exaggerate these factors about their own research if there is funding demand involved, leading to drastically altered conclusions. This particular research seems to stand as an example of precisely that occurring, or else it is the product of some other logical interference. Plainly, it does not stand up to the highest standard of logic, though some of it may be useful in understanding children's problems if we were to underrate the exhaustiveness of the research relative to the article's conclusions.
The inability to understand such cues (alongside other symptoms which are nonetheless similarly associated with stereotypical nerds) is often given a name - Asperger's Syndrome, or more generally, half the spectrum of autism. After all, normally our understanding of other's physical cues is either built-in or rapidly learned at an early age, and only a select number of problems can interfere with that, one of them being an inability to learn these things naturally. I'd suspect that these disorders are far more common in minor forms than their diagnosis is, because it is a very subtle difference that people often decide to call weirdness or oddity.
However, despite the commonality of autism-like disorders, it would be quite mad to decide that this particular problem with cues is the sole cause of the "Nerd factor", or social rejection. What about low initial social status from wealth and ethnic disadvantage, the grief of losing family members at a fragile age, extremely challenging personal or family problems, depression and other mental diseases, and parental neglect? All of these can make a child unable or unwilling to interact with others in a fluid way, leading to more issues and eventually to escapism. There is never just one issue which if solved will improve everything, which is why it's not an easy thing to defuse on a mass scale. Therefore, I must disagree with the title of the article and that of the study, both of which suggest that the "study reveals why 'nerds' get bullied", because the study is clearly not exhaustive enough to reveal all causes.
Similarly, it makes no sense to say that only 10% of students experience bullying in their lifetime. The experience is, by all accounts I've ever read, universal to kids who go to school. That figure is just too low to be believable. I can see that a numerically similar statistic is in the linked article, but it is given with a different meaning, that 10-13% experience rejection. A much more specific experience, but even so, who is kidding themselves that there is anyone who has never experienced the rejection of their peers, let alone that this demographic is the majority of all school-age kids? No child who knows other children, no matter how popular they are, could escape that, plain and simple.
Science is a very good tool for asking questions, but more often than not the results are exaggerated and their meaning is perverted by interpretations of a very subjective nature. Scientists, being under pressure to produce definitive, exhaustive and useful results, may even exaggerate these factors about their own research if there is funding demand involved, leading to drastically altered conclusions. This particular research seems to stand as an example of precisely that occurring, or else it is the product of some other logical interference. Plainly, it does not stand up to the highest standard of logic, though some of it may be useful in understanding children's problems if we were to underrate the exhaustiveness of the research relative to the article's conclusions.
Well tell a child "Don't start fights, follow the rule and be good or I'll beat you."
As I was as a kid.
Then throwing them into a world where everyone else starts a fight, your a tattle tale to make you more hated if you follow the rules, and if you defend yourself as a victem you were sat right next to the bully punshied equally to him. (Yeah 50lb kid attacked 80 pound kid who stands 6 inches taller than him right...) Then bully beats kid up again because he told. Now your labeled a tattle tale, and if you defend yourself again you get twice the beatings/punishment.
Oh then at 17-18 you magicly care about kids now adults fighting with laws...
Yet at 13 if someone beats 3 of your teeth out they so much barely get a month in juvie for assault and battery and bodily harm for a laugh that it was just kids joshing.
Maybe set up the rules for the kids. "If someone hits you, kick their ass like they are trying to kill you. If they get ya in trouble I'll deal with it."
Which would be perfect.
As I was as a kid.
Then throwing them into a world where everyone else starts a fight, your a tattle tale to make you more hated if you follow the rules, and if you defend yourself as a victem you were sat right next to the bully punshied equally to him. (Yeah 50lb kid attacked 80 pound kid who stands 6 inches taller than him right...) Then bully beats kid up again because he told. Now your labeled a tattle tale, and if you defend yourself again you get twice the beatings/punishment.
Oh then at 17-18 you magicly care about kids now adults fighting with laws...
Yet at 13 if someone beats 3 of your teeth out they so much barely get a month in juvie for assault and battery and bodily harm for a laugh that it was just kids joshing.
Maybe set up the rules for the kids. "If someone hits you, kick their ass like they are trying to kill you. If they get ya in trouble I'll deal with it."
Which would be perfect.
While I agree that sometimes bullying is the nerd's fault (Lord knows it was for me), I think this study needs to realize that, you know, bullying may also have a little something to do with, hmm, the bullies!
No shit.
Although its mainly that some people are assholes and pick on those who are weaker than them.
It doesn't require a study to figure this out.
Although its mainly that some people are assholes and pick on those who are weaker than them.
It doesn't require a study to figure this out.
"Nerds"(What is a nerd again?)are bullied because of alot of reasons. Not some bullshit about social cues. I will not disagree that this is probably one of the many causes, but these "scientist" are talking like the nerds are at fault for not fititng in. That is BULLSHIT.
A person can be bullied due to races,how they act,being a smartass, and various others instantces that they cannot change. Also, I should mention that all humans are pricks, just some are bigger than others. They can just pick on someone for no good reason.
A person can be bullied due to races,how they act,being a smartass, and various others instantces that they cannot change. Also, I should mention that all humans are pricks, just some are bigger than others. They can just pick on someone for no good reason.
So, people are bullied because of an inablility to read non-verbal cues?
Whilst that might be right up to a certain point, there are just too many other factors. As a past victim of bullying, I always thought it was jealousy that caused it. In secondary school, the guy who made my life hell for three years was second in the class when it came to grades (I was first). So I thought the bullying was his way of reaffirming himself as best in the class.
I guess my reactions in the early years of it just added fuel to the fire. It took me years before I felt I could stand up for myself.
To be honest, I think most bullying comes from the bully themselves, as others have already said.
Also, the 10% of people getting bullied sounds about right; I take it then that it refers to prolonged bullying?
Whilst that might be right up to a certain point, there are just too many other factors. As a past victim of bullying, I always thought it was jealousy that caused it. In secondary school, the guy who made my life hell for three years was second in the class when it came to grades (I was first). So I thought the bullying was his way of reaffirming himself as best in the class.
I guess my reactions in the early years of it just added fuel to the fire. It took me years before I felt I could stand up for myself.
To be honest, I think most bullying comes from the bully themselves, as others have already said.
Also, the 10% of people getting bullied sounds about right; I take it then that it refers to prolonged bullying?