Category: Behavior

By on

Mean Girls and Bullies are a reoccurring theme in any depiction of American adolescence. They always seem to pop up as a potent, almost dictatorial, presence in high schools. They also seem to land at the top of the school hierarchy which, given their nastiness, seems odd. It baffles me.

Think about it. On the first day of school the teacher doesn’t announce to the class that you are going to start dividing yourself into people you like and people you don’t like. Some of you will get invited to all the birthday parties, others will not. Suzy will be the chief mean girl and Bill is the big bully. Let the school year begin.

It is a hierarchy created by the kids. It is cruel. It is pervasive and it is has an effect on a child’s life.

Adults can try to mitigate the social hierarchy but it happens regardless of their best efforts. Adults can tell kids to be respectful but how does a school control the in crowd and the out crowd. The creation of these groups, be it — Jocks, Nerds, Cool Kids, Stoners — is an act of group self-creation. Adults don’t make the decision.

How the hierarchy all sorts out is a mystery to everyone but, perhaps, the group itself. In reality, there may not be any rational explanation other than this is the chemical reaction of this particular group of kids.

The two things that interest me here is why does it happen at all and why do the same type of kids (jocks and cheerleaders) end up at the top and others (nerds and goths) end up near the bottom. The story, the one you see in the movies and read in books, always is the same. Mean Girls and Jocks take over and end up at the top of the teenage hierarchy.

This would seem like an unimportant detail. Who cares why some kids rise to the top and other kids don’t. It is just school but I am afraid it is very important because mean girls and bullies continue their reign of terror throughout their lives.

Explain Trump. He is a bully. Why is he tolerated? Why are people still willing to work for such an asshole even though he has made everyone perfectly aware that he has no loyalty to anyone except himself?

Maybe the whole problem with Trump, particularly for the people who are immune to Trump’s charm, is trying to find a rational reason for people putting their faith in such an asshole when it is more of an instinctual thing — irrational and subconscious.

He is the silverback who beats his chest in the most convincing manner and to our ape selves that is all that matters.

By on

The other day, I was discussing how violence seems to be a part of human nature. There is something about violence that attracts humans both to participate and to watch. It is an irrational strong urge and, because of that, must be fed in some way. My speculation there got some confirmation today when I saw this post about chimps getting violent. Scientists are mystified on why these chimps, who were co-operating in the past, now were attacking each other. There is some talk about resource sharing but nothing seems to explain this sudden violent turn. On the face of it, it seems irrational.

The problem here might be trying to find a rational basis for this violence. Maybe there just isn’t any good reason other than animals sometimes have to express themselves violently and that, humans being mammals, the same irrational instinct is present in us. Why do football players continue to play football when there is substantial evidence that playing the game damages their future health. People stopped smoking after they learned more about tobacco, why hasn’t the same turnaround occurred with football.

Which makes me think our whole strategy on violence might be misdirected. Our base assumption is that nobody wants violence and, logically, this makes sense. Who wants to have their bodies beaten up? Who wants to watch this type of game? But, the truth is: people do want to participate and they do want to watch. Perhaps what we need to do is find a way that people can express these violent urges without, or at least limiting, the physical pain to other humans.

I know that violent video games have a bad reputation for the dehumanization of people but it is infinitely preferable to killing and maiming actual human beings. What I am saying is maybe we need to expand our tools in dealing with violent behavior. Yes people shouldn’t want to hurt other people however our very nature might predispose us to some forms of violence. How do we do we deal more effectively with that reality?

By on

A few weeks back, I was talking with a woman who complained that she never knows what she is hearing is actually true. She hears something and a few days later learns that it was “fake news.” This is even more troubling when it is news that she relays to other people only to find out later that it was indeed “fake news.” I understand her concern here because I sometimes do the same thing with the same embarrassing results.

My friend blamed the internet as the source of the problem and, at first, I agreed with her. Yes, it would be nice if people only passed on truthful information. It would certainly make life easier but this isn’t neither new nor startling behavior. People were bull shitting long before the internet existed. The problem, as it has always been, is human behavior where there has been a long history of people trading in rumors, half-truths and just general bull shit.

In fact, the internet gives me the power to check on something the moment I hear it and, then, being able to determine whether this is indeed true. Since I have become more diligent at verifying information, I am astounded by how much bad information is passing through the world — even from people who I would normally trust. I can’t tell you how many times I have learned that the information was total bull shit, more often partial bull shit or the irritating taking someone’s statement out of context which is bull shit dressed up as truth.

The lesson here, as it was in the past, is verify before passing on. It is a hard lesson but a valuable one. Only you can prevent bull shit spreading.