[–] gindc 0 points 25 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago
"But researchers at Simon Fraser University surveyed a group of Vancouver high school students and found bullies were the least likely to be depressed, had the highest self-esteem and the greatest social status."
Basically not too different from chickens establishing a pecking order. The topped rank chicken will literally peck at (bully) lower ranked chickens.
[–] PM-me-about-Autism 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
If I knew this it would have saved me a lot of trouble.
[–] AberdolfLincler 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
So another case of correlation does not equal causation?
[–] nomenimion 2 points 9 points 11 points (+11|-2) ago
In my experience, bullies are not happy people.
[–] anonlymouse [S] 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago
They already talked about that. The visible ones aren't, but they don't make up the majority of bullies.
[–] nomenimion 2 points 12 points 14 points (+14|-2) ago
I suspect they're using an overly broad definition of the word.
[–] NikoMyshkin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
sounds more like Dark Triad with pronounced psychopathy than just garden entirety bullying
[–] bunsenhoneydew 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
So people who think they're better than others generally feel like they're better than others.
Next time we should do a study to see what religion the pope identifies under
[–] conundrumbombs 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
This makes a lot of sense, because all you have to do is state the inverse:
"Provocative new study finds victims of bullying have lowest self-esteem, social status, highest rates of depression."
[–] mox 1 point 29 points 30 points (+30|-1) ago
I wonder if bullies are more likely to lie on surveys about these variables - e.g. they say they're happier because they're putting up a front all the time - even for anonymous surveys. Could relate to:
Obviously this would be pretty tough to tease out.
[–] anonlymouse [S] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
The problem with that is you have to make sure non-bullies don't have problems at home.
[–] RonaldRayGuns 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
who doesn't have 'some underlying issue'? that's a bullshit factoid
[–] yafgi ago
A pity that the study is rejected by people based on not liking the outcome of the study, instead of doing a peer review or trying to conduct a repeat study to see if the outcome is correct. Regardless how you feel about bullying, you should work with what is proven to be true, not reject something because 'it doesn't feel right'. It might turn out the study was flawed, but please prove that instead of rejecting it because you don't like the outcome. This is science, not religion.
[–] mox ago
I'm not rejecting the study or disagreeing with its outcome, and didn't say that anywhere in my OP. It's an interesting topic, and like all science, one study doesn't confirm or deny anything. This study is the beginning of an interesting conversation that I'm looking forward to following along with. Relax.