3 ms·

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

by mdakin 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 Bullies tend to choose victims who are socially withdrawn, seem anxious or fearful, are nervous in new situations, or have some physical characteristic that might make them more vulnerable.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 17y ago
  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.
berntb 17y ago
>> I'd like to see [the author's] data. I admit mine is anecdotal. I bet his is too. Sigh, just Google his name: www.yale.edu/psychology/FacInfo/Kazdin.html Edit: I am also stupid. :-) Just check the end of the article. "Alan E. Kazdin, who was president of the American Psychological Association in 2008, is John M. Musser professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University and director of Yale's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. Carlo Rotella is director of American studies at Boston College."
- mdakin 17y ago
  He has written over 600 papers and 40 books. Perhaps his data about the efficacy of standing up to bullies is somewhere buried in that writing. But it's not obvious at all that it is given your Google search. I'm not particularly interested in his background or qualifications. I want to see the actual data that substantiates his thesis quoted above.
  - berntb 17y ago
    He he. You have a point, he might be lying about his subject... :-) (I have no idea, but as someone noted above -- there is no one writing here that has better credentials in any subject than the author has in this.) Edit: I might add that I voted you up, for the humor. In the first comment you "bet" that the author just has anecdotal evidence -- and then you don't retract when you see he has decades of research in the subject!

by mdakin 17y ago

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

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 17y ago
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.

berntb 17y ago

>> I'd like to see [the author's] data. I admit mine is anecdotal. I bet his is too. Sigh, just Google his name: www.yale.edu/psychology/FacInfo/Kazdin.html Edit: I am also stupid. :-) Just check the end of the article. "Alan E. Kazdin, who was president of the American Psychological Association in 2008, is John M. Musser professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University and director of Yale's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. Carlo Rotella is director of American studies at Boston College."

mdakin 17y ago
He has written over 600 papers and 40 books. Perhaps his data about the efficacy of standing up to bullies is somewhere buried in that writing. But it's not obvious at all that it is given your Google search. I'm not particularly interested in his background or qualifications. I want to see the actual data that substantiates his thesis quoted above.
- berntb 17y ago
  He he. You have a point, he might be lying about his subject... :-) (I have no idea, but as someone noted above -- there is no one writing here that has better credentials in any subject than the author has in this.) Edit: I might add that I voted you up, for the humor. In the first comment you "bet" that the author just has anecdotal evidence -- and then you don't retract when you see he has decades of research in the subject!