3 ms·
1. Linking to six websites on the general subject of bullying is hardly a well-reasoned presentation of research and evidence to support an argument. In additi
by ryanwaggoner 17y ago
1. Linking to six websites on the general subject of bullying is hardly a well-reasoned presentation of research and evidence to support an argument. In addition, several of these websites specifically contradict the advice of the author and encourage kids to stand up for themselves in the face of bullying.
2. The average reader is unlikely to conduct a PubMed search for research and scholarly works related to the subject of bullying.
3. I was specifically referring to the lack of evidence to back up the position that standing up to bullies is rarely effective, not everything in the article. You're right that this wasn't clear. My mistake.
You seem to have missed completely that I'm not primarily disagreeing with his position (though I do), but rather with the shallow presentation of that position.
EDIT: removed a mistaken reference to the Guardian
- tptacek 17y agoThe article didn't appear in The Guardian. You misread my comment. I don't understand where you think this argument is going to take you. Whatever critiques you may have of the way Kazdin has boiled down the huge volumes of research on this topic for a Slate article, he's not a reporter. He's the president of the American Psychological Association, a professor at Yale, and the director of the Yale Parenting Center; he's also written a well-regarded book on the subject. You may have a valid argument about what he's saying about bullying, but you are totally clouding it by attacking his credibility. He has much more credibility on this subject than you do.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]