Back
to top
Mean Spirited v Bullying
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
There is a lot of emphasis on zero-tolerance regarding bullying in children's peer groups, and rightfully so. However, that perhaps gives way to a reverse bullying known as "cry-bullying" where one can claim to be a victim with little substance, possibly triggering a chain-reaction that leaves ever more on edge.
One wonders if "bullying" really is the main form of suppression in a learning environment; is not "light ribbing" a catalyst for progression? Is it not mean spirited behaviour that drives down the thirst for learning, over being scolded for not knowing something that one should ?
Is it not mean spirited behaviour that is the real bullying ?
A zero tolerance on mean spirited behaviour ?
One wonders if "bullying" really is the main form of suppression in a learning environment; is not "light ribbing" a catalyst for progression? Is it not mean spirited behaviour that drives down the thirst for learning, over being scolded for not knowing something that one should ?
Is it not mean spirited behaviour that is the real bullying ?
A zero tolerance on mean spirited behaviour ?
Last edited by libostance; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Report
#2
There is a difference between being so called 'mean-spirited' and bullied.
Being bullied is when someone is repeatedly hurt, intimidated, and harassed.
Someone who communicates with someone who is 'mean-spirited' is not harassed like a bully would do, they may be told one rude comment.
Being bullied is when someone is repeatedly hurt, intimidated, and harassed.
Someone who communicates with someone who is 'mean-spirited' is not harassed like a bully would do, they may be told one rude comment.
1
reply
The assumption that one scenario can only occur as a single event, while the other is continuous is unrealistic. Perhaps I worded it wrong, but one has to assume there a climate of either one in equal proportion to measure against.
You mention being "hurt", which is difficult to define, however intimidation and harassment are easier to map and pretty much the same thing. Of course the learning environment should be an open one free from harassment/intimidation, but quite how one or more individuals have the time to waste with such dedicated behaviour, away from learning, is a wider question.
Mistakes are the best way to learn, and the time to make them is in the classroom. However, there seems to be a growing pattern of accusations that constructive criticism is a form of "bullying", or that mean-spirited comments could qualify. The point of interest I have is when the tables turn with an inversion of the definition and the pupil employs the same tactics, but are at fault themselves.
While bullying is a niche form of suppression, by comparison mean-spirited behaviour would be the overriding culture of the environment, which would negate on-topic and insightful interaction to the detriment of the overall learning process.
I think that a mean spirited culture is far more of a learning impediment to focussed bullying, overall. And, crucially, it harder to galvanise mean-spiritedness in the flexible way that "bullying" can be.
You mention being "hurt", which is difficult to define, however intimidation and harassment are easier to map and pretty much the same thing. Of course the learning environment should be an open one free from harassment/intimidation, but quite how one or more individuals have the time to waste with such dedicated behaviour, away from learning, is a wider question.
Mistakes are the best way to learn, and the time to make them is in the classroom. However, there seems to be a growing pattern of accusations that constructive criticism is a form of "bullying", or that mean-spirited comments could qualify. The point of interest I have is when the tables turn with an inversion of the definition and the pupil employs the same tactics, but are at fault themselves.
While bullying is a niche form of suppression, by comparison mean-spirited behaviour would be the overriding culture of the environment, which would negate on-topic and insightful interaction to the detriment of the overall learning process.
I think that a mean spirited culture is far more of a learning impediment to focussed bullying, overall. And, crucially, it harder to galvanise mean-spiritedness in the flexible way that "bullying" can be.
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by libostance)
The assumption that one scenario can only occur as a single event, while the other is continuous is unrealistic. Perhaps I worded it wrong, but one has to assume there a climate of either one in equal proportion to measure against.
You mention being "hurt", which is difficult to define, however intimidation and harassment are easier to map and pretty much the same thing. Of course the learning environment should be an open one free from harassment/intimidation, but quite how one or more individuals have the time to waste with such dedicated behaviour, away from learning, is a wider question.
Mistakes are the best way to learn, and the time to make them is in the classroom. However, there seems to be a growing pattern of accusations that constructive criticism is a form of "bullying", or that mean-spirited comments could qualify. The point of interest I have is when the tables turn with an inversion of the definition and the pupil employs the same tactics, but are at fault themselves.
While bullying is a niche form of suppression, by comparison mean-spirited behaviour would be the overriding culture of the environment, which would negate on-topic and insightful interaction to the detriment of the overall learning process.
I think that a mean spirited culture is far more of a learning impediment to focussed bullying, overall. And, crucially, it harder to galvanise mean-spiritedness in the flexible way that "bullying" can be.
The assumption that one scenario can only occur as a single event, while the other is continuous is unrealistic. Perhaps I worded it wrong, but one has to assume there a climate of either one in equal proportion to measure against.
You mention being "hurt", which is difficult to define, however intimidation and harassment are easier to map and pretty much the same thing. Of course the learning environment should be an open one free from harassment/intimidation, but quite how one or more individuals have the time to waste with such dedicated behaviour, away from learning, is a wider question.
Mistakes are the best way to learn, and the time to make them is in the classroom. However, there seems to be a growing pattern of accusations that constructive criticism is a form of "bullying", or that mean-spirited comments could qualify. The point of interest I have is when the tables turn with an inversion of the definition and the pupil employs the same tactics, but are at fault themselves.
While bullying is a niche form of suppression, by comparison mean-spirited behaviour would be the overriding culture of the environment, which would negate on-topic and insightful interaction to the detriment of the overall learning process.
I think that a mean spirited culture is far more of a learning impediment to focussed bullying, overall. And, crucially, it harder to galvanise mean-spiritedness in the flexible way that "bullying" can be.
I'm sorry if I didn't answer your question correctly or how you would have liked.
0
reply
I think that you've exemplified my point in your most recent response.
I am unsure of the exact situation you found yourself in, but I am quite sure that it would have been received differently by another: the main variable being the attitude of the recipient which counts most.
Feelings matter, but maintaining a thin skin will simply allow the original situation to repeat itself - scar tissue works differently. There is no nice way to say the truth to someone hell bent on running away from it, but when it becomes an issue for another then it must be confronted at its source.
I get the impression that you have given up too easily on this subject, but I think it merits further investigation, else there is nothing to be gained.
I am unsure of the exact situation you found yourself in, but I am quite sure that it would have been received differently by another: the main variable being the attitude of the recipient which counts most.
Feelings matter, but maintaining a thin skin will simply allow the original situation to repeat itself - scar tissue works differently. There is no nice way to say the truth to someone hell bent on running away from it, but when it becomes an issue for another then it must be confronted at its source.
I get the impression that you have given up too easily on this subject, but I think it merits further investigation, else there is nothing to be gained.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by libostance)
I think that you've exemplified my point in your most recent response.
I am unsure of the exact situation you found yourself in, but I am quite sure that it would have been received differently by another: the main variable being the attitude of the recipient which counts most.
Feelings matter, but maintaining a thin skin will simply allow the original situation to repeat itself - scar tissue works differently. There is no nice way to say the truth to someone hell bent on running away from it, but when it becomes an issue for another then it must be confronted at its source.
I get the impression that you have given up too easily on this subject, but I think it merits further investigation, else there is nothing to be gained.
I think that you've exemplified my point in your most recent response.
I am unsure of the exact situation you found yourself in, but I am quite sure that it would have been received differently by another: the main variable being the attitude of the recipient which counts most.
Feelings matter, but maintaining a thin skin will simply allow the original situation to repeat itself - scar tissue works differently. There is no nice way to say the truth to someone hell bent on running away from it, but when it becomes an issue for another then it must be confronted at its source.
I get the impression that you have given up too easily on this subject, but I think it merits further investigation, else there is nothing to be gained.
Don't you get that some people are sensitive and feel differently about things than you? Not everyone is going to take a snarky comment as 'constructive criticism'. If you do, then kudos to you for thinking everyone in life wants to best for you.
I haven't given up, it just seems we take two different viewpoints on the matter.
0
reply
I am not familiar with this concept at all.
The need to precursor a statement as if being issued from a position of weakness results in two things:
1. That the assumption of guilt is assumed over innocence.
2. That the issued opinion has been ill thought out.
Your example of the term "lazy" being used to describe a problem(s) is perfectly legitimate, if back up with the example(s) why. The general term can be used of course, and it is expected that the individual(s) would understand their own culpability in the matter. Used in this fashion it is more of a soul searching imperative, if anything to allow the individual(s) to decide for themselves i.e. responsibility.
I understand that there is advantage to managing events to one's own benefit, or to outright deflect responsibility, but I respect more those of whom soul search to take upon themselves the burden of another, if they can see their failings. Most in my experience self-select, the no-nonsense attitude of the private sector is renowned for that, and stronger for it. But where does it recruit from if the education system is stuck in the public sector, and that is perhaps why so much success comes so easily to those from a private educational background ?
A positive attitude is everything, being robust and understanding failure is key to success.
The need to precursor a statement as if being issued from a position of weakness results in two things:
1. That the assumption of guilt is assumed over innocence.
2. That the issued opinion has been ill thought out.
Your example of the term "lazy" being used to describe a problem(s) is perfectly legitimate, if back up with the example(s) why. The general term can be used of course, and it is expected that the individual(s) would understand their own culpability in the matter. Used in this fashion it is more of a soul searching imperative, if anything to allow the individual(s) to decide for themselves i.e. responsibility.
I understand that there is advantage to managing events to one's own benefit, or to outright deflect responsibility, but I respect more those of whom soul search to take upon themselves the burden of another, if they can see their failings. Most in my experience self-select, the no-nonsense attitude of the private sector is renowned for that, and stronger for it. But where does it recruit from if the education system is stuck in the public sector, and that is perhaps why so much success comes so easily to those from a private educational background ?
A positive attitude is everything, being robust and understanding failure is key to success.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by libostance)
I am not familiar with this concept at all.
The need to precursor a statement as if being issued from a position of weakness results in two things:
1. That the assumption of guilt is assumed over innocence.
2. That the issued opinion has been ill thought out.
Your example of the term "lazy" being used to describe a problem(s) is perfectly legitimate, if back up with the example(s) why. The general term can be used of course, and it is expected that the individual(s) would understand their own culpability in the matter. Used in this fashion it is more of a soul searching imperative, if anything to allow the individual(s) to decide for themselves i.e. responsibility.
I understand that there is advantage to managing events to one's own benefit, or to outright deflect responsibility, but I respect more those of whom soul search to take upon themselves the burden of another, if they can see their failings. Most in my experience self-select, the no-nonsense attitude of the private sector is renowned for that, and stronger for it. But where does it recruit from if the education system is stuck in the public sector, and that is perhaps why so much success comes so easily to those from a private educational background ?
A positive attitude is everything, being robust and understanding failure is key to success.
I am not familiar with this concept at all.
The need to precursor a statement as if being issued from a position of weakness results in two things:
1. That the assumption of guilt is assumed over innocence.
2. That the issued opinion has been ill thought out.
Your example of the term "lazy" being used to describe a problem(s) is perfectly legitimate, if back up with the example(s) why. The general term can be used of course, and it is expected that the individual(s) would understand their own culpability in the matter. Used in this fashion it is more of a soul searching imperative, if anything to allow the individual(s) to decide for themselves i.e. responsibility.
I understand that there is advantage to managing events to one's own benefit, or to outright deflect responsibility, but I respect more those of whom soul search to take upon themselves the burden of another, if they can see their failings. Most in my experience self-select, the no-nonsense attitude of the private sector is renowned for that, and stronger for it. But where does it recruit from if the education system is stuck in the public sector, and that is perhaps why so much success comes so easily to those from a private educational background ?
A positive attitude is everything, being robust and understanding failure is key to success.
Can I ask you a question? Say we ran into each other on the street, I called you ugly and said you need to get plastic surgery. Would that give you a positive attitude and motivate you to get plastic surgery? No. It would make you upset. You wouldn't listen to the person who made the rude comment, because you don't know them and their opinion means nothing to you. That is NOT an example of constructive criticism, that's just flat out rude, criticism.
3
reply
Report
#9
Bullying involves a power imbalance and is often a repeated action against one target; interacting with someone who is mean spirited usually doesn’t meet that criteria
Last edited by Smeraldettoi; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Report
#10
Define "mean spirited behaviour".
I agree with OP though, that it is not obvious where the line between bullying, ribbing, banter, and fun interaction between friends changes. I don't think in practice there is ever a "zero tolerance" approach, as every incident requires judgement and context to understand.
Cry-bullying is a real thing though. It happens in the schoolyard, the internet, and in the corporate world too (lawyers get rich off it!).
I could easily imagine a scenario when lazy could be used as constructive criticism - the pupil who isn't doing his work repeatedly, the winger who isn't tracking back to help her defence. Context and specifics always matter.
I agree with OP though, that it is not obvious where the line between bullying, ribbing, banter, and fun interaction between friends changes. I don't think in practice there is ever a "zero tolerance" approach, as every incident requires judgement and context to understand.
Cry-bullying is a real thing though. It happens in the schoolyard, the internet, and in the corporate world too (lawyers get rich off it!).
(Original post by sunny.side.up)
I disagree, any in their right mind would take being called say 'lazy' as rude, in no way is that constructive criticism (just an example).
I disagree, any in their right mind would take being called say 'lazy' as rude, in no way is that constructive criticism (just an example).
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Smeraldettoi)
Bullying involves a power imbalance and is often a repeated action against one target; interacting with someone who is mean spirited usually doesn’t meet that criteria
Bullying involves a power imbalance and is often a repeated action against one target; interacting with someone who is mean spirited usually doesn’t meet that criteria
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I could easily imagine a scenario when lazy could be used as constructive criticism - the pupil who isn't doing his work repeatedly, the winger who isn't tracking back to help her defence. Context and specifics always matter.
I could easily imagine a scenario when lazy could be used as constructive criticism - the pupil who isn't doing his work repeatedly, the winger who isn't tracking back to help her defence. Context and specifics always matter.
0
reply
I would define "mean spirited" as suffocating the true nature of the individual and their unique approach to contributing to solve a problem; of which the learning environment should provide the tools to do so. There may be several individual(s) or cultural group clashes as a result, which is necessary for weaker ideology to wither, but overall there should be a majority consensus to successfully put to rest the problem at hand. This results in each individual choosing for themselves, so it's very much an individual choice to replace a weaker stance with a more robust one i.e. to learn and be allowed to.
"Lazy" is not a noun. One is expected to learn, the faster the better, especially when the odd one out. If looking to receive disproportionately more of the finite resources available than others, particularly when one is at fault, then I think it is important to learn from a young age that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated, and that it should therefore propel one to become more inquisitive and thus useful to themselves and all around them.
A mean spirited environment will digressively blunt the sharpest tool, while one of bullying is subjective to the individual, but agreed by the majority, it wastes too many resources to be effective: a mean spirited environment by comparison promotes weaker culture and attitudes.
"Lazy" is not a noun. One is expected to learn, the faster the better, especially when the odd one out. If looking to receive disproportionately more of the finite resources available than others, particularly when one is at fault, then I think it is important to learn from a young age that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated, and that it should therefore propel one to become more inquisitive and thus useful to themselves and all around them.
A mean spirited environment will digressively blunt the sharpest tool, while one of bullying is subjective to the individual, but agreed by the majority, it wastes too many resources to be effective: a mean spirited environment by comparison promotes weaker culture and attitudes.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
