You are probably right.
i guess it depends how you want to play it.
Even though she gets in trouble she still gets to kick ass which I think is important.

If her parents have her back on it then it might work out ok, if her parents can support her when they need to discuss after the fact with administration.

If nothing else it will bring the situation to a head and teach the bully the lesson of his life.

Sure, and if she was 15/16, I might agree (probably not, though). Eleven? Definitely not. In either case, I'm almost certain she's getting suspended regardless of her parent's support.

She'd be lucky just to get suspended. Kids are expelled for having Tylenol in their purses. Kid with pepper spray? Expulsion and arrest.

The problem is with the bully, not your daughter. On that front there's little you can do beyond pursuing whatever course is open to you via the school authorities. IMO you'd do well to keep your daughter out of that as far as possible - no-one likes a rat and that's how she'll be perceived if your intervention becomes a significant part of the narrative from the POV of the kids concerned. That could well exacerbate the issue.

Confrontation and so forth are also poor candidates for resolution, unless you want to have your daughter learn krav maga or something. Realistically, if she's being bullied it's because she's perceived as vulnerable. "Bullying is wrong" is fairly strongly ingrained in most people, so bullying is naturally directed towards those whom the fewest peers are likely to defend. Does your daughter play team sports, hang with a clique, etc? If not, you might consider encouraging her to.

This, too.

Yeah your right. I just thought it sounded cool. In reality 11 is too young to do this.

You must be city folk. It was totally real, unexceptional, and happened exactly as I said. Regular homeroom, not a science teacher. It's 4th grade, public school. Not a chance she'd lose her job over it. If pressed, they'd tell her to stop. It was an offhand comment, not a creationist module. They don't do much science at that age so the teachers are not very indoctrinated.

I let it slide in the sense of not confronting it. But we talked a lot about standing up for science wherever it leads. One of the few advantages to the schools here (southern Arkansas) is that my kids will never mistake authority for truth. They learn thoroughly from their own life experience not to give unearned respect to authority. Endless learning moments for teaching independent thinking. I'll tell an even wilder tale soon.

Jokes aside, pretty much yes. As a social psychologist I do speak with some expertise on the matter as well.

Bullying isn't something that is solved via talks or having people realize "the truth". Those are pre-emptive measures and the trying that as solutions is like treating traffic victims with commercials for safety belts.

Also; regardless of how many such programmes one do run... bullying is a completely normal human process and will exist pretty much anywhere where there are people. You can reduce, but never really root it out. Thus any organization should always have procedures for dealing with bullying.

Short version: Bullying must be investigated fairly, and when found the perpetrators must be punished. It doesn't matter if they are 6, 11 or 63.

I don't know if you actually invented it, but props for this ingenious phrase

I can't take credit for that one. I've head that phrase for decades.

Ew.

You Americans and your weapon fixations..... what's wrong with a good old fashioned punch on the nose?

Ok joking aside, I'm interested in people's perspective on this video of a kid who retaliates after being bullied. Everywhere I've encountered this I've been the only voice arguing that the kid goes too far against everyone else arguing that the bully got what he deserved, see what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isfn4OxCPQs

As a psychologist I'm not overly interested in "right" and "wrong". I'm interested in what is human, what makes people tick and what works.

Obviously his action is not effective if the goal is to stop the (claimed) harassment. He might have been "lucky" in this case (because the case got so much attention and views on youtube), and thus hands were forced and remedial steps taken - but if we assume no camera or widespread media circus, all he did was escalate the conflict and in most cases any (potential) harassment would only grow stronger as a result.

Psychologically speaking his reaction is very human. He is physically much bigger and likely much more dangerous than the bully, and thus the risk of direct negative outcome is slim.... the survival reflex therefore does not trigger. His reaction is aggressive, which is also natural because he responds to direct physically aggressive behavior towards his persona.


If the "bully got what he deserved" requires knowledge of the situation and to pass moral judgment, something which isn't readily available from this short video.

I suspect most people go beyond the actual video and construct a scenario where the "benevolent underdog" person has been bullied and harassed for a long time by a person who has no concern for others - but the underdog has always responded peacefully (which storywise strenghtens his moral superiority) - untill finally one day it goes to far and the "evil" person finally has to pay for his lack of moral behavior (which only proves the underdog is only human).

This is typical "legend" crafting... most people love stories like that, and we when we love a particular type of story - we often tend to fit what we observe into them.




Note that this is grunched. I haven't researched or examined the case. You asked me to assess this based on only the video, and that is what I did. If anyone wants to protest because "there is more to the story" - good for them. Gathering facts is always the first step to determine what actually took place here - but I interpreted your "challenge" to assess this only from the video.

My particular objection to the victim's reaction is the head first slam into concrete that he inflicts on the bully. It could have been fatal and in my view was not reasonable force, especially given his greater size and strength, no matter what the provocation. What happened before or after is irrelevant to that view.

When suggesting that, I've been met with a chorus of 'the bully got what he deserved'. Presumably then the bully deserved to almost be killed by a kid literally twice his size?

(By the way, I have actually seen follow up interviews with both bully and victim and the story was well covered by the press. Most, if not all, the pertinent facts are known but as I say, I don't consider them relevant to my specific objection)

It isn't very likely that the big kid had any particular outcome in mind when he responded. Physical harassment triggered his instincts to fight and the fact that he is so much bigger limits the effect of the survival reflex. From there it's just flailing and the toss of the dice.

A courtroom might have take outcome into the consideration, but psychologically speaking - I would say it is close to uninteresting. Most deaths and grave injuries in fights are not intended by the causing party on any meaningful cognitive level.

Social psychology is not law however, from my standpoint we should operate with the assumption that the response is normal. This doesn't mean we should allow it, but it means that the gravity of harassment/bullying (because it can trigger such events) should be seen as notably higher.

She should tell then she prayed that they would leave her alone so if He exists they will stop.

Checkmate, Christians.

The bully went too far. That's why that happened.

I know your sentiment is most likely firmly rooted in caring, but this is potentially a harmful way to view the world.

The simple fact is that there are more parties than one in this case. A onesided blame might have value in the courtroom, but as in an understanding of how people interact (and thus something that determines how we should build the system they interact in) it is of little value.

The two parties we should immediately focus on is the school and the (presumed) bully.

If you have an issue with something that doesn't exist are you delusional?

The behaviour of the religious is real. So technically, I don't have an issue with any gods since I don't believe that they exist, and I've already said that, I have an issue with the results of people believing in gods.

That's pretty typical of the response I normally get. The opinion that the bully deserved it.

And this is more inline with how I feel.

It's not the victim's response that's the issue for me, it's people's response to the victim's response. He was lauded for it and I think it should have been condemned, whether it's understandable or not.

Oh, I don't have a problem with it on a personal level. A scrawny kid who picks on a big kid is both cruel and stupid.

Dealing with bullying on a normative level is doomed to fail however. We can't reduce bullying by relying on violent responses from victims. So on a professional level I'll just note that the kids retaliation is "only human". I see no reason to condemn a kid for being human.

From a grownup we should (maybe, it depends on context) expect more, but grownups actually have different brains from kids. Don't try and and understand kids as "small adults" - they are not.

Like.

to the point hat he deserves to be slammed head first into concrete? And if he had received significant brain damage or died, would you still feel that he got what he deserved and not had a problem with it?

You don't have to be 'grown up' to understand not to body slam people into concrete. My kids do an MMA class, they're the same age and they understand that perfectly.

You don't think this might have been excessive force?

"Oh yeah? God doesn't listen to your prayers because you don't believe in Him." - Middle schooler argumentation style