Because Bullying Makes You Healthy

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

So I was in my usual haunts when I found this article about what are the effects of the bully/bullied. http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...rough-bullying

It made me wonder though, are people capable of a model outside bully/bullied when we are responding to it in a biological level. If a potential bully is in fact acting out a biological impulse to protect themselves, do people have a way around this?

I'm posting to social woes because if you think of the ramifications of this, it really does intersect every rights movement that exists and also suggests why often one rights movement can be quite tone deaf to the pleas of others. Even when restricted to bullying, if you think about it, it is restricting the activities of those who would be bullied for a social end which could in fact have the same effect as being bullied if a human is constantly checking their own activity.

Long way of saying, is there a biological solution here or is everything just picking winners and losers.

[crashhelmet]

Bullying is a psychological issue, not biological. It may have biological "advantages" but that is simply the result of the biological response to the psychological stimuli.

Most bullies are bullies because it makes themselves feel better about themselves. They convince themselves that they are the better, stronger, smarter, prettier, whatever one and it spikes their sympathetic nervous system. Basically, it puts them in the "fight" phase of the natural "fight or flight" instinct.

Dopamine levels spike, causing Norepinephrine levels to spike, and their heart rate increases, lungs, take in more air, etc, etc, etc. The body starts pumping out the necessary energies to prepare for the fight and it results in a somewhat "healing phase."

Because bullies tend to bully often, this study has some merit.

But because there is always a however, different bullies tend to bully for different reasons. Some bullies are just elitist assholes. Others are victims themselves. Some bullies are victims of their own insecurity and victimize others to ignore or downplay those insecurities.

These "negative" aspects do the opposite for their body and, in theory, can do enough to counteract the "positive" aspects of bullying and level the playing field, so to speak.

This also works for those that are bullied. The "flight" response, or even the "fight" response if they fight back, has the same effect on their sympathetic nervous system and can and will make them "healthier." But again, any "negative" impacts from depression, insecurities, etc can negate those "benefits."

With all of that said, you can get the same health benefits from exercise, particularly from a combat art or anything else that requires immediate reactions.

[Gravekeeper]

There's no healing phase or health benefits to the fight or flight response and it most certainly does not make you healthier, it takes a heavy physical toll on the body. Especially with prolonged repeated exposures. That's one of the reasons PTSD is such a bitch.

As the article indicates:

The advantage probably doesn't lie in the aggression itself, but rather in the heightened control, power, and social status that bullies enjoy, he believes.

As the full study ( not the clickbait article ) indicates, lower levels of CPR are directly related to high social status, education and socioeconomic status in the general population. Its not the bullying itself that improves health, its the percieved increase in social status and thus self esteem.

Its not really a surprise that people who feel better about themselves are healthier. We have mounds of research that proves that already. All this study is demonstrating is that it works for bullies as well. The CPR levels of young adult bullies only looks significant when compared to that of their victims. Otherwise its perfectly within the normal range. A range, which, it should be noted does not have a precise concensus as different labs use different ranges for what is considered "normal". CPR levels also spike significantly with any sort of illness or infection, even a simple cold and CPR levels increase with age.

The only take away is that its generally agreed upon that less then 1 is within normal range for the average adult with no current health issues or illnesses. So there's nothing remarkable about CPR levels in bullies aside from the stark contrast of their levels compared to those of their victims.

Furthermore, bullying being "healthy" was not the point of the study, its just the title of the clickbait article. The study's point is the complete opposite of the article's title.

[gremcint]

Let's say hypothecially it does make you healthier, well that health is coming at the expense of someone else's health.

[Gravekeeper]

Let's say hypothecially it does make you healthier, well that health is coming at the expense of someone else's health.

It would be more accurate to say that bully's health stays normal while victim's health suffers. The same doesn't pan out for mental health, however as the biggest predictors of bullying behaviour are personality disorders and depression with a subset of sociopathy or narcissism.

So if you want to look at it from a hypothetical biological standpoint; Its not a biological advantage or an evolutionary one in a species with a complex social brain structure. Since ultimately the bully can only exert control over those weaker than themselves and only on a smaller social scale where they can rely on creating the illusion of majority social rejection of the victim.

Since bullying is a destructive cycle and often the result of a poor home life it provides no biological advantage to your offspring. Except to make them miserable assholes no one likes just like you. Plus its directly destructive to the social order and thus not an advantage to us as a species either. Humans evolved a sense of fairness and injustice. They are biological advantages for a complex social species. We have it, primates have it, even dogs and crows have an evolved sense of fairness and equality. Its a neccessary function for a social species.

Being a fucking asshole on the other hand, not so much. =p

[crashhelmet]

GK, you're looking at the overall picture, which is something I touched on in my reply.

This study was looking at one single aspect of the situation. Yes, it's a click bait article. Yes, the study itself is questionable. They took one single solitary aspect of the effects of bullying and ran with it. It happens all the time. That's science for you.

They study how many times rabbits fart in an hour and the chemical breakdown of their gaseous emissions. Then they release a study saying rabbits are responsible for global warming or the hole in the ozone layer or the tsunami in Indonesia or some other bullshit correlation.

They have to do something with the funding they get.

*EDIT*
And oh yeah, while the article might imply that these "health benefits" are substantial, they're not.At least not in their momentary occurrence. Their Sympathetic Nervous System would have to continually fire off to have that effect.

[Gravekeeper]

This study was looking at one single aspect of the situation. Yes, it's a click bait article. Yes, the study itself is questionable. They took one single solitary aspect of the effects of bullying and ran with it. It happens all the time. That's science for you.

There is no problem with the study or the science behind it. The only problem is the article's clickbait title premise. So I don't know what you're on about with the "That's science for you" tangent. It has nothing to do with science. Its more accurate to say "That's the media for you".

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the actual study. The fact you're essentially claiming to know better than an international team of specialists in pyschology and behavioural sciences is frankly pretty arrogant of you.

And oh yeah, while the article might imply that these "health benefits" are substantial, they're not.At least not in their momentary occurrence. Their Sympathetic Nervous System would have to continually fire off to have that effect.

Did you even read the article itself? Nevermind the study. Because you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what this is about based on the random theory you yourself inserted into this thread. Which is in turn based on your own misunderstanding of biology.