Bullying in Comparison to the Predator-Prey Ecosystem

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I would like to provide a unique perspective on bullying by comparing them to the relations of predators and their prey in the wild. As you've already know, a predator's job is to keep their prey's population in control by hunting them down and consuming them. I remember during the Rite of Spring segment from Fantasia, they were referring to the carnivorous dinosaurs as "gangsters/bullies." That had me thinking about the bullies in human society. We have a unique ecosystem of our own, so what if bullies actually share an importance to this exact system? Instead of eating their victims like the carnivores in the wild, a bully's job is to keep the children's population in check by constantly belittling them and driving them into a pulp. This isn't just limited to children, as I'm sure there also exists adult bullies. When I've shown this perspective to a few of my friends on Skype, the results were rather negative, but it had interest me to create a thread to discuss about this here to hear what others think. Do you find this view on bullying interesting, or am I just comparing apples to oranges because we stray too far from our primal instinct?

 

[Mana1]

As Limerent said, the Predator-Prey analogy really doesn't work. Many observations made of the natural world don't apply well to the human species. The urge to pass on ones genes is often overridden by the desire to be wealthy, to be loved, to be successful in business, etc. We're a few steps away from the old 'reproduce and rear offspring as often as possible' ideal.

The underlying point to your thread seems to be that Bullies are natural. Well, this seems to be a given. Bullying of some degree happens everywhere (yes, even among adults) but does it happen in the natural world? Is a Penguin who steals another Penguin's rocks a bully, or are we just applying what little we know.

You're either blissfully achieving your purpose in the species and keeping others away from your prize (bully), deficient but tormented by biological urges that you cannot achieve (victim) or so fully deficient that you just don't care (asexual).

...Are these really the only three options in life? If you think that way then you really are limiting yourself. People achieve without being bullies, people become tormented and downtrodden without being victims (of others). Asexuals aren't categorised by their lack of caring?...

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

1. If you're a heterosexual and you want to find a partner, yes. Other things are just means to that end. People may not realise they want to have kids but they are aware they want a partner. Sexual and romantic relationships are an element to those innate biological instincts. Whether you go all the way and reproduce is not as important as having some involvement in that process.

2. Maybe you can achieve things without bullying, although dirty tactics can get you far in this society. My idea is that the more successful you are either sexually, financially, socially etc. the more tolerated your bullying will be, especially if the victim has less status in these things. Whose going to say anything when the bully has more value as a person? It happened all the time to me in school, they're well adjusted and have a large circle of friends, you don't, that makes it ok to them and less believable to any authority.

3. That's called depression and whilst you're right it can happen to people who are successful with a good job, family etc. it doesn't rule out the large number of people who have negative mental states due to negative treatment by others. I know you didn't say that it did, I'm just reaffirming my position.

4. They [Asexuals] are categorised by their lack of caring about sex, making it one less weapon to be used against them. In my opinion the West is a hypersexual society where you are judged harshly on your success in that field, or lack thereof. Ask a man past his mid twenties how people think of him when they find out he's still a virgin... and it's not just men obsessing over sex, women will think you're a freak and that there's something wrong with you. In the past and in other countries people are more focused on the end result, that being monogamous marriage and childbirth. We care about how many relationships you've had, or at least having had one.

This may only be one type of bullying but in my opinion having had success in some form of romantic/sexual relationship (or not) is a large underlying reason that formulates how people will think of you and treat you.

This sexual predator-prey analogy is rampantly prevalent in my peer group. Personally, I've gained enough maturity to realize it's all bull****, and refuse to be sexual in that realm and instead in the adult realm where all things are better considered. Ergo, I've learned what clothes you wear or what your friends think is nowhere near as important as personality traits and bank statements. So, I guess I'm socially asexual in the now, and later on in life more sexual? I don't know.

I do want to point out your use of the word sexual isn't incoherent, as others seem to be thinking about the standard "sexuality" when the words are uttered. In this context the base meaning of the word "sexual" is being used - meaning, in relation to the sexes - as a means of conveying a point in the topic of socializing/predator-prey/ITT.

 

[Lozz]

This sexual predator-prey analogy is rampantly prevalent in my peer group. Personally, I've gained enough maturity to realize it's all bull****, and refuse to be sexual in that realm and instead in the adult realm where all things are better considered. Ergo, I've learned what clothes you wear or what your friends think is nowhere near as important as personality traits and bank statements. So, I guess I'm socially asexual in the now, and later on in life more sexual? I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the adult realm" but if you expect it to be markedly different from high school you are going to be pretty disappointed. The only thing that changes really is the sense of proportion. High school and college to an extent are basically microcosms of real life. Obviously the world is a big place, so if you don't want to associate with certain types of people it is much easier not to but the general behaviours are much the same.

It strikes me as a fairly naive assumption that personality traits and bank balances are the only thing that matters when you are older. Relationships with people are incredibly important and what someone thinks about you can make or break an opportunity. Unless you are going to hermit yourself up in the mountains somewhere unfortunately appearance and relationships are going to factor heavily into successes.

I also don't agree with the predator/prey analogy but I do believe in a victor/victim mentality. These don't always occur as a result of bullying or being bullied but I think they can contribute to people feeling bullied or not feeling bullied in certain situations. For example, someone with a victim mentality might feel put upon or pressured by the strong opinions of an individual, even if that is not the intentions of the individual.

A lack of confidence is also a contributing factor to the actions of both bullies and the bullied. People who feel poorly about themselves look to bring others down through bullying. People who are bullied often feel they lack the self confidence to stand up for themselves. In this sense, I don't think it is correct to label bullies in a strong, predator role. They are more like scavengers preying on those they percieve to be weaker to sustain themselves.

Anyway, I don't really post often so apologies if this comes across as garbled.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the adult realm" but if you expect it to be markedly different from high school you are going to be pretty disappointed. The only thing that changes really is the sense of proportion. High school and college to an extent are basically microcosms of real life. Obviously the world is a big place, so if you don't want to associate with certain types of people it is much easier not to but the general behaviours are much the same.

It strikes me as a fairly naive assumption that personality traits and bank balances are the only thing that matters when you are older. Relationships with people are incredibly important and what someone thinks about you can make or break an opportunity. Unless you are going to hermit yourself up in the mountains somewhere unfortunately appearance and relationships are going to factor heavily into successes.

I also don't agree with the predator/prey analogy but I do believe in a victor/victim mentality. These don't always occur as a result of bullying or being bullied but I think they can contribute to people feeling bullied or not feeling bullied in certain situations. For example, someone with a victim mentality might feel put upon or pressured by the strong opinions of an individual, even if that is not the intentions of the individual.

A lack of confidence is also a contributing factor to the actions of both bullies and the bullied. People who feel poorly about themselves look to bring others down through bullying. People who are bullied often feel they lack the self confidence to stand up for themselves. In this sense, I don't think it is correct to label bullies in a strong, predator role. They are more like scavengers preying on those they percieve to be weaker to sustain themselves.

Anyway, I don't really post often so apologies if this comes across as garbled.

I'd have thought you'd read more in the message I was conveying rather than dissecting my words at face value, but I guess not. No, personality and money are not literally the only considerations of an adult's value. That's obviously not the point I'm making, lol.

As far as college and work being more akin to high school than I thought, I guess I have more of an upper hand towards success even then with what matters, adding to my post above. If people in their twenties and thirties still concern themselves with menial **** then I've been giving humans too much credit, not just my teenage peer group. :P

I've always preferred the ways of people older than me. Maybe I'm ahead of my time, or far behind on the times in general. I don't know.


By the way, the predator/prey analogy I read above is just a figurative likening to winners and losers, which has a negligible difference from a victor/victim mentality (the difference being social response, which is messy).

 

[Yoshikkko]

Sorry I think that's the worst analogy you could make. Humans are not driven by instinct. We are intelligent and we choose our behaviour. We have no shame when it comes to social manipulation, degradation or humiliation and it's not necessary for us to survive either. I hate it when people compare humans to animals because we're simply not the same and the same rules don't apply.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Sorry I think that's the worst analogy you could make. Humans are not driven by instinct. We are intelligent and we choose our behaviour. We have no shame when it comes to social manipulation, degradation or humiliation and it's not necessary for us to survive either. I hate it when people compare humans to animals because we're simply not the same and the same rules don't apply.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what, but regardless I will mention that all of those things are arguably wrong in some sense or another.

 

[Yoshikkko]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what, but regardless I will mention that all of those things are arguably wrong in some sense or another.

No I'm not being sarcastic. Bullying has literally no function and we're not "driven" to do it either, like animals' actions are (debatable depending on the species but for the sake of the argument). You can disagree with me, this is just my opinion, I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

No I'm not being sarcastic. Bullying has literally no function and we're not "driven" to do it either, like animals' actions are (debatable depending on the species but for the sake of the argument). You can disagree with me, this is just my opinion, I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong.

I was moreso getting at your other points though. Humans in general are very misguided and often conceited about their place in the world, and are rather erroneously informed about their differences and similarities with other animals. Humans are only different to other animals as other animals are to each other - we are not somehow excluded from being yet another member of the realm of Animalia. You are right about humans' ability to have a learnéd lack of remorse/guilt, but like all animals we have instincts that play active roles in our life, and I'm pretty certain all animals want to survive and none of them need to, regardless of if said animal is human or not.

 

[Yoshikkko]

I was moreso getting at your other points though. Humans in general are very misguided and often conceited about their place in the world, and are rather erroneously informed about their differences and similarities with other animals. Humans are only different to other animals as other animals are to each other - we are not somehow excluded from being yet another member of the realm of Animalia. You are right about humans' ability to have a learnéd lack of remorse/guilt, but like all animals we have instincts that play active roles in our life, and I'm pretty certain all animals want to survive and none of them need to, regardless of if said animal is human or not.

I think this is going in an entire different discussion but this is the last thing I'll say on it. Animals, unlike humans, are driven by instinct. Animals do not comprehend their actions like humans do. Animals do not reflect on their actions, humans are entirely different in that regard. The only "instincts" we have are basal instincts like eating and reproduction and even the latter is debatable. I'm not an animal expert but I'm a bit tired of people trying to use instinct as an excuse for people's horrible actions. The last thing you said is silly imo so I'm not gonna respond to that sorry.

 

[Oryx]

Sorry I think that's the worst analogy you could make. Humans are not driven by instinct. We are intelligent and we choose our behaviour. We have no shame when it comes to social manipulation, degradation or humiliation and it's not necessary for us to survive either. I hate it when people compare humans to animals because we're simply not the same and the same rules don't apply.

I agree. Even in other social animals we see socialized actions come out - the classic experiment of monkeys with a banana on stairs in the middle of their cage for instance. The monkeys attacking any monkey that climbs the stairs are not doing it out of pure instinct; if they were, then they would have attacked it from the start as instinct isn't learned. It's a learned behavior, and it's perpetuated by a social system.

No one speaks instinctually. No matter what they say, it is not by instinct because there is no instinctual urge to speak words out loud. Whatever instinct they may have, to win or whatever, is filtered through a human brain and translated into words. In the case of any physical action beyond actually attacking someone, it has to be filtered through what's acceptable in society, what they can get away with, who's there, etc. Even when it comes to violence for bullying it's premeditated, planned, and far from instinctual.

Most people who try to apply animal logic to humans tend to do it to normalize a terrible behavior. "Men are misogynists because they instinctually know women are weaker!" "Bullies are bullies because they instinctually want to hunt the nerdy 6th grader!" "Women choose jerkwads for boyfriends because they instinctually want the alpha male!" No, we do our things because we have thoughts and take actions on those thoughts based on what we want and social acceptability.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I think this is going in an entire different discussion but this is the last thing I'll say on it. Animals, unlike humans, are driven by instinct. Animals do not comprehend their actions like humans do. Animals do not reflect on their actions, humans are entirely different in that regard. The only "instincts" we have are basal instincts like eating and reproduction and even the latter is debatable. I'm not an animal expert but I'm a bit tired of people trying to use instinct as an excuse for people's horrible actions. The last thing you said is silly imo so I'm not gonna respond to that sorry.

I mean, think what you'd like, but it's not like we don't have brain stems containing hard-coded genetic behaviours or anything. I'm not sure exactly what definition of instinct you're using, but our actions when we're sexually active constitutes one of our major instinct-driven behaviour sets, along with others I can't remember at present. I don't know what you're getting at with the last point you made about excuse-throwing, and as far as my last point I made previously I didn't think there'd be much to refute.


Humans are animals. We have everything that comes with being animals. We're not somehow exclusive from other great apes or other mammals or other organisms simply because we think we are. Minute differences such as the ability to reflect on things doesn't constitute a lack of instinct.

Maybe what you're getting at more is that instinct isn't involved in a social construct, and I can really ride the fence with that one. No, instincts don't drive negative behaviours, but I'm certain lower-level thought patterns to do with instincts can be catalysts for learnéd behaviours like the ones outlined above. It's not uninvolved, no. But it's not the only culprit here, either.

 

[Kanzler]

I think there's a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread. When a bully does whatever he does, he is acting out of instinct. Aggression and threat displays are instinctual. Do you think a bully is fully aware of the action he takes as he's doing them? Even after he's done them? Although behaviours can be learned and unlearned, I don't think it's justify to rule out instinct as a factor in influencing someone's behaviour. You can't say, oh because such and such is socially constructed, instinct isn't involved. Both factor in.

How a bully acts is not 100% out of choice. This not 100% aspect is important in the same way that children in general are not fully conscious of their actions. It reflects the complexity in how you cannot simply "talk sense" to change the way people act.

More generally, I'd argue that humans aren't all "rational" "intelligent" beings 100% of the time. In fact, we're probably only rational when we consciously will ourselves to be. Think of all the things we've done that are contrary to our better judgement. Did we intelligently choose those self-defeating acts?

 

[Oryx]

I think there's a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread. When a bully does whatever he does, he is acting out of instinct. Aggression and threat displays are instinctual. Do you think a bully is fully aware of the action he takes as he's doing them? Even after he's done them? Although behaviours can be learned and unlearned, I don't think it's justify to rule out instinct as a factor in influencing someone's behaviour. You can't say, oh because such and such is socially constructed, instinct isn't involved. Both factor in.

How a bully acts is not 100% out of choice. This not 100% aspect is important in the same way that children in general are not fully conscious of their actions. It reflects the complexity in how you cannot simply "talk sense" to change the way people act.

More generally, I'd argue that humans aren't all "rational" "intelligent" beings 100% of the time. In fact, we're probably only rational when we consciously will ourselves to be. Think of all the things we've done that are contrary to our better judgement. Did we intelligently choose those self-defeating acts?

Saying that socialization plays such a huge part in our actions as to make instincts inconsequential does not say that humans are all rational, intelligent beings 100% of the time. Socialization does not imply clearheaded thoughts processes in every action; it implies a different source for the underlying emotions and assumptions that drive those actions.

 

[Yoshikkko]

I think there's a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread. When a bully does whatever he does, he is acting out of instinct. Aggression and threat displays are instinctual. Do you think a bully is fully aware of the action he takes as he's doing them? Even after he's done them? Although behaviours can be learned and unlearned, I don't think it's justify to rule out instinct as a factor in influencing someone's behaviour. You can't say, oh because such and such is socially constructed, instinct isn't involved. Both factor in.

How a bully acts is not 100% out of choice. This not 100% aspect is important in the same way that children in general are not fully conscious of their actions. It reflects the complexity in how you cannot simply "talk sense" to change the way people act.

More generally, I'd argue that humans aren't all "rational" "intelligent" beings 100% of the time. In fact, we're probably only rational when we consciously will ourselves to be. Think of all the things we've done that are contrary to our better judgement. Did we intelligently choose those self-defeating acts?

The one with a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread is you lol. You think bullying is instinct?? Instinct does not differ from person to person. That means every person would do it if it was instinct because it would be a naturally driven (re)action or reflex. They don't. I think you should really just read up on what instinct is and why it is that humans do not have it or don't have to rely on it anymore. Whether a person is fully aware of what they're doing has absolutely nothing to do with instinct, once again I recommend you just read up on what it is. And subconscious behaviour =/= instinct. And what Oryx said.

Also, why are you so apologetic of bullies?? Why wouldn't a bully be fully aware of what they were doing? It's not some natural force that drives someone to be an *sshole, it's a choice they make. Whether they're not a 100% aware of what the consequences are is an entirely different story.

 

[Kanzler]

The one with a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread is you lol. You think bullying is instinct?? Instinct does not differ from person to person. That means every person would do it if it was instinct because it would be a naturally driven (re)action or reflex. They don't. I think you should really just read up on what instinct is and why it is that humans do not have it or don't have to rely on it anymore. Whether a person is fully aware of what they're doing has absolutely nothing to do with instinct, once again I recommend you just read up on what it is. And subconscious behaviour =/= instinct. And what Oryx said.

Also, why are you so apologetic of bullies?? Why wouldn't a bully be fully aware of what they were doing? It's not some natural force that drives someone to be an *sshole, it's a choice they make. Whether they're not a 100% aware of what the consequences are is an entirely different story.

I don't know how perceptive you were as a teenager, but I can tell you from my experience that people do bad things to each other without realizing or being fully aware of it. People can be emotionally stunted and just express themselves with violence instead of talking things out. Describing it as a "choice" is frankly an oversimplification. There are difficult childhoods, lack of emotional expression, learning, and empathy at work. Not all choices are equal - we shouldn't treat a person with an emotionally underprivileged childhood as someone who is more mature.

No, bullying isn't 100% rooted in instinct (it occurs within a social context) but it isn't 0% rooted in instinct either - I'd argue that it has an instinctual basis. The aggressive emotions we feel, the reactions we have towards threats, those are instinctual. And for a bully, some of those behaviours happen to be mapped to social situations where they aren't acceptable.

I don't think many people choose to be an *******. You can take a troublesome kid to a side and really get them to think about something they've done, but they could go back to doing the same old things they did the next day. Mental health, for example, isn't about making people 100% aware of things, it's about correcting bad habits and thought patterns. Awareness alone doesn't accomplish anything - and besides, what is awareness? I think it's a concept that is difficult to define and is an easy scapegoat to explain other people's actions.

Furthermore, I think you are being needlessly aggressive in your discussion style and avoid engaging in concepts you don't agree with. It's rather extreme to claim that humans do not have it or don't need to rely on it anymore. If you're talking about what Maslow considered to be instinct, that's a very narrow definition that doesn't account for the grey area between instinct and conscious decisions. Also, I think you're not acknowledging how most things in the world aren't black and white. For example:

It's not some natural force that drives someone to be an *sshole, it's a choice they make.

It's neither, and more of something in between. That's what I'm trying to say here. It's not a natural force that drives someone to be an *******, but there are natural forces that are involved in determining how we react to which situations. A bully might "choose" to lash out at somebody for a perceived slight, but it might be more of a reaction than a conscious choice. I really don't think it's that controversial for me to say that things are often some mean between two extremes, and neither should I be accused of being apologetic for bullies because of it.

 

[Kanzler]

I didn't want to reply in the thread because I was just gonna repeat myself, but nothing you said in your newest reply is related to instinct. I get your points but even if people do not make a conscious choice to bully someone (which I know some don't), it has nothing to do with instinct. Instinct is something entirely different. Like I said in the post you quoted, subconscious is NOT instinct. Please read about it, you're just really misinformed. I don't have anything against the points you made and it's not a matter of opinion either, it's seriously just scientifically not true.

What is your definition of instinct?

Most people use the word instinct casually, like he/she has an instinct for x/y/z. Some psychologists consider emotions like fear, love, and anger to be instincts. Instincts are not learned, and are common throughout a species. Such is the case with anger, because although we learn how to express anger in different ways and with varying levels of aggression, we don't learn how to be angry. Anger, in this sense, is instinctual. To be more clear, when a bully is doing his bullying, he is tapping into his anger instinct - even though that instinct might be misapplied. This is how instinct /is/ related to bullying.

Anyways, I have read about it, given the information I've posted in the above post. If I must say anything about instinct itself, it's that it's really an outdated concept if you take the narrow definition of something that is complex, unlearned, and common to all members on a species because many animals, especially mammals, are capable of learning beyond instinct as Oryx addressed in her monkey example.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

The one with a misleading understanding of instinct in this thread is you lol. You think bullying is instinct?? Instinct does not differ from person to person. That means every person would do it if it was instinct because it would be a naturally driven (re)action or reflex. They don't. I think you should really just read up on what instinct is and why it is that humans do not have it or don't have to rely on it anymore. Whether a person is fully aware of what they're doing has absolutely nothing to do with instinct, once again I recommend you just read up on what it is. And subconscious behaviour =/= instinct. And what Oryx said.

Also, why are you so apologetic of bullies?? Why wouldn't a bully be fully aware of what they were doing? It's not some natural force that drives someone to be an *sshole, it's a choice they make. Whether they're not a 100% aware of what the consequences are is an entirely different story.

I was a bully in elementary school. I look back on it with a sense of regret.


Honestly, John and I seem to be on the same page with the involvement of instinct with negative social behaviours. Humans are clearly imperfect, and more often than not bullies conflict more with themselves than they do with anyone else in their lives. They're insecure, so they turn that insecurity of theirs on its head by making others feel the same. It's a really basic mechanism.

 

[Kanzler]

They're insecure, so they turn that insecurity of theirs on its head by making others feel the same.

Herein lies a problem of the concept of instinct. It seems natural, and frankly unlearned, that people turn insecurities (threats, basically - mental threats but threats all the same) on other people. Or is it something people pick up by observing others? To what extent is something learned or instinct? It looks natural, and it's certainly unconscious, that's something we know for sure. I think don't think it's very clear whether this behaviour is instinctual or not, but I think there is a case to be made for both its innateness and its learnedness. Same goes for bullying and a whole slew of other behaviours. Even if they aren't strictly instinct, they do have instinctive/innate character. And I think it's important to understand that some aspects of humanity are innate, lest we end up with a utopian and unrealistic conceptualization of what it means to be human.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Herein lies a problem of the concept of instinct. It seems natural, and frankly unlearned, that people turn insecurities (threats, basically - mental threats but threats all the same) on other people. Or is it something people pick up by observing others? To what extent is something learned or instinct? It looks natural, and it's certainly unconscious, that's something we know for sure. I think don't think it's very clear whether this behaviour is instinctual or not, but I think there is a case to be made for both its innateness and its learnedness. Same goes for bullying and a whole slew of other behaviours. Even if they aren't strictly instinct, they do have instinctive/innate character. And I think it's important to understand that some aspects of humanity are innate, lest we end up with a utopian and unrealistic conceptualization of what it means to be human.

I think a lack of persecution in retaliation of threat is a learnéd behaviour. Ergo, humans learn not to dig themselves into a hole of their own fears and instead learn to overcome fears rather than run from them. It's been part of our genetics for millions of years to run from things instead of fight them, as our older extinct relatives were in the realm of scavengers - and from personal experience I can say that my point holds true as well.