Why bullies are bad for everyone

"In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me … By that time there was no one to speak up for anyone."

 Martin Niemöller

Bonding over bullying

I've been meaning to post about this Invisibilia episode for ages, and also saw this comment from a somewhat recent post that made me want to post it again, and finally have gotten around to it.

So the Invisibilia episode is worth listening to fully, at least the first half of it. It talks about a woman who has always been treated badly, bullied, and even villified, and she had no idea why. She's high functioning -- a doctor -- but she found social interactions to be very difficult. She describes the worst of many similar episodes of bullying:

The worst thing that ever happened was, I was at summer camp, and I don't know what I did. I have no idea. But they actually bound and gagged me and took me out of the cabin at night in the rain and put me outside, and it was just awful.

Here's why: "Kim's brain is not great at seeing emotion. When she looks out at the world, she physically sees all the things that most people see. It's just that much of the emotion is subtracted. Though for most of her life, she didn't realize that, and so her interactions with other kids could be difficult."

She undergoes TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation, which some of you may remember from Wisdom of Psychopaths: "Basically in TMS you take this very fancy magnet, hold it to the scalp and send pulses through the skull to get brain cells to activate in a different way. They typically change for a very short period of time - between 15 and 40 minutes."

During TMS, she experiences for the first time an awareness of the emotional world, and realizes that this whole time she has been missing out on millions of emotional cues from the people around her. She says that she would have otherwise had no idea that such a world existed before, because she had always just believed that the way she saw the world was the way the world actually was (sound familiar to all of you out there?).

I thought the hosts had an interesting reaction to her realization that the world was different than she thought it was -- as if maybe she would have been better off not knowing. But she doesn't see it that way at all:

But even though TMS has not changed Kim's ability to see long-term, she says she's still happy she got it. She says she thinks a lot about one of the videos she was shown. In it, two employees were saying mean things to a fellow employee named Frank. And Kim says the first time she watched it before the TMS, she couldn't answer any of the questions the researchers were asking about it. But afterwards, she understood not only the video but also one of the big mysteries that had dominated much of her life.

KIM: It never made any sense to me as to why people would be mean to somebody else. Why would you be mean to somebody? And what I saw is that when the two employees were there and were talking together and then were giving Frank a hard time, the primary thing was not that they were trying to be mean to Frank.

The primary thing is that they were bonding, building a bond between the two of them. And it was simply the means to do it was to be nasty to Frank. And then I was like, oh, maybe that's what these kids were doing when they were bullying me.

SPIEGEL: It's much easier to live in a world which makes sense, where people are mean not just for fun but because they, like everyone else, want to belong and feel safe. Now that's the world that Kim lives in. 

This same phenomenon of bonding over bullying was referenced in the comment I mentioned above:

But I also made the experience, that the team spirit in a group is rising if there is a common "enemy/victim". Well it's at the victims expense but for the rest of the group and their friendships it is something positive... Anyway, I don't know if this phenomenon is also visible in a group consisting of various sociopaths.

The point of the podcast was that everyone has blindspots -- everyone has a certain viewpoint that by its very nature is limited. As much as Kim was blind to emotions and sociopaths are blind to morality, empaths are also blind to the random things they get up to -- like bonding over bullying. The key is to have just a little bit of intellectual humility to admit the possibility that the way you see the world may not be 100% accurate. 

Beware of pride

In church I heard someone recite the quote "Usually our criticism of others is not because they have sins, but because their sins are different than ours." I have a theory. If we had to break down the seven deadly sins, I would think that sociopaths are overrepresented for gluttony, lust, sloth, and wrath. Throw in deceit and invasion of other people's personal autonomy, and that is maybe 85% of the bad behavior of sociopaths? Empath seven deadly sins tend to be more greed, envy, and pride; sins come from the very thing that they treasure the most, their personal interconnectedness with others. One can be a glutton, or playboy, or lazabout, or hothead pretty much by oneself. Envy explicitly involves comparing oneself to another, typically in the same culture -- someone that you might interact with regularly. Pride is also a sin of comparison, as LDS President Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught, "for though it usually begins with 'Look how wonderful I am and what great things I have done,' it always seems to end with 'Therefore, I am better than you.'"

[P]ride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer.

Similarly, greed depends on what you are exposed to. If you are raised in poverty, greed might mean the desire to eat meat every day. In more affluent cultures, greed might mean the desire for a trophy spouse

I know these are fine distinctions, because aren't sociopaths greedy egocentrics who think they're better than most people? Yes, but they are much less caught up in a desire to maintain their place in the social hierarchy. They don't feel greed because they just go after what they want, so don't feel deprived. They don't feel envy because they think they're better than others. They do feel pride, but they would feel pride no matter what situation they're in and who they're surrounded by -- that is, they don't necessarily need to be around their "lessers" in order to feel "better."

I was thinking about this when I read yet another story about a young person committing suicide due to vicious and unrelenting bullying. She was 12 years old and she jumped to her death after 15 middle-school children texting her such things as "Why are you still alive?” “You’re ugly" and “Can u die please?” The thing is that she wasn't ugly. She was pretty and apparently smart and a cheerleader. How could someone like her become the target of such hate? Apparently there was a dispute over a boy she dated. And maybe the fact that she lived in a mobile home? I wonder why things like this happen, what is the trigger to this seeming mob mentality. Maybe there is a sociopath ringleader, could be. But are all 15 bullies are sociopaths? No, empaths are susceptible to the siren call of bullying, I think more susceptible than sociopaths.

A sociopath uses bullying as a tool. An empath lives bullying as a lifestyle. There is something that is compelling about bullying to empaths of all ages and cultures. How else to preserve the social order and their tenuous place in it? In fact, research supports this. Bullies are neither at the very top or the very bottom of the social hierarchy but just under the top, envying those that are just above them and willing to sell out those under them to finally make it to the coveted top:

In her work videotaping children, she has found that 85 per cent of the time, an act of bullying is witnessed by other children. And 75 per cent of the time those watching are encouraging the bully, Prof. Pepler adds.

Sociopaths in the news: Stealing babies

I actually don't know enough about the culture of China to be able to tell whether this would be considered something sociopathic, or rather something just a little opportunistic and coldheartedly pragmatic. The Los Angeles Times reports about an obstetrician in China who convinced parents and grandparents to give up newborns that she claimed were disabled or otherwise undesirable:

Her method, authorities and victims say, was cruel and effective: convincing families that their babies were dead or dying, or afflicted with incurable diseases or congenital deformities. In rural China, a lack of support and restrictions on family size can make people reluctant to raise a child with disabilities.

Police say the doctor's victims were often friends and neighbors, forced to make heart-wrenching decisions about whether their babies should live or die, thus becoming complicit in their purported deaths. Zhang, the families say, even charged them a fee of about $10 to dispose of the corpses.

Zhang is believed to have frequently preyed on the fears of the grandparents, who in the Chinese countryside are desperate for healthy grandchildren to carry on the family line. The mothers were frequently left out of the loop.

Part of the reason this could happen is that health care is not sufficient to care for certain babies who could otherwise survive, or a lack of support for people raising children with disabilities:

A generation ago, unwanted babies in rural China were dumped in a well or smothered. Zhang Wei of the Enable Disability Studies Institute, a Beijing-based advocate for the disabled, said a disabled child still makes life very difficult for rural families.

"The whole burden comes down on the family. There is nobody to help them, no money and no education about what they can do, so they abandon the baby," Zhang Wei said.

However, perhaps the most shocking example happened with a family who was convinced to give up a baby who was claimed to neither be clearly male nor female, due to the dishonor it would bring on the family:

"He is not completely male, but not female. It will bring shame on the family," whispered the doctor, Zhang Shuxia, a trusted family friend whom they affectionately called "Auntie." "Don't worry," Dong recalled Zhang telling him. "Auntie can help you."

She advised that Dong and his mother give up the baby, euphemistically, to let him be euthanized.

Now I understand that parents of newborns are probably vulnerable, particularly ones without a high level of education and sophistication, but can you imagine choosing to euthanize your child just because it failed to conform to particular social norms that had nothing to do with its health? Of course it is difficult to raise a child who is different in these ways, but it has nothing to do with actual physical disability and everything to do with a natural human intolerance for difference. People put enormous pressure on each other to conform, often enforced with bullying and shaming. Although sociopaths don't feel the same sort of pressure to conform or enforce conformity, I can imagine that they would use this pressure people feel against them, if it would benefit them. That's why I wonder about the obstetrician. Either way, the antidote is to be self-actualized and to not fear the opinion of the masses, something that these princess boys have down (and Bradley Manning, apparently, good for him).

More on cruelty

Keeping in line with yesterday's post, from The American Conservative, "The Walking Boy", a true story about one man's experience being a boy-racist because he hung out with racist friends and he couldn't help himself?:

All I can say in my defense is that I never hurled a stone at him, or shouted abuse. But I stood by, many a time, as others did those things, and I neither walked away nor averted my eyes. I never held anyone’s cloak, but then I was never asked to. I watched it all, gripping a rock in my hand as though I were preparing to use it — so that no one would turn on me with anger or contempt — and I always stood a little behind them so they couldn’t see that I wasn’t throwing anything. I was smaller and younger than the rest of them, and they were smaller and younger than him. In my memory he seems almost a full-grown man; I suppose he was eleven or twelve. 

We called him Nigger Jeff. I have never doubted that Jeff was indeed his name, though as I write this account I find myself asking, for the first time, how we could have known: I never heard any of the boys speak to him except in cries of hatred, and I never knew anyone else who knew him. It occurs to me now that, if his name was Jeff, there had to have been at least a brief moment of human contact and exchange — perhaps not even involving Jeff, perhaps one of the boys’ mothers talked to Jeff’s mother. But we grasp what’s available for support or stability. It’s bad to call a boy Nigger Jeff, but worse still to call him just Nigger. A name counts for something.
***
Sometimes I would be playing alone in my yard, and would look up to see Jeff walking by. My heart would then buck in my chest, but he never turned his head to acknowledge my presence. At the time I wondered if he knew that I never threw rocks at him, that I didn’t curse him — for, if my memory is not appeasing my conscience, I avoided that crime as well. But now I realize that he neither knew nor cared about the individual members of our cruel impromptu assembly: with rocks in our hands we were just mobile, noisy impediments to his enjoyment of some of the blessings of life — friendship, comfort, safety — but when unarmed and solitary we posed no threat and therefore, for Jeff, lacked significant substance. He kept his eyes on that day’s small but valued prize, and kept on walking. 

Why didn’t I throw rocks at him? Why didn’t I curse him? Well, obviously, because I felt sorry for him. But not sorry enough to walk away, or to turn my back on the scene; and not nearly sorry enough to stay a friend’s hand or demand his silence. I was young, and small, and timid. I saw one valid option: to stand as a member of the chorus, grasping the rock that was the badge of our common identity. There’s no point now in trying to distinguish myself from the others. But I can’t help it.

First, is it really true that "Nigger Jeff" is better than "nigger"? Arguably worse, right? Because it's both acknowledging his humanity (that he is a human boy with a name) and in the same breath saying that he is a lesser form of humanity. I myself prefer less personal, nameless insults, but maybe I'm not typical that way.

This sort of bullying is not unique to just children, but adults can be equally childish about it. Mainstream media trades in it, despite all of their recent anti bullying talk. One of my friends was recently remarking at how it's amazing that Lindsay Lohan has put up with all of the abuse -- for the past 10 years or so there have probably been no fewer than five negative articles/posts/tweets per day about her. And Lindsay Lohan is not even the most hated human alive, not by a landslide, but apparently she just happens to have a particular suite of personality characteristics that make her a perfect storm for gossip? Bullying, really. But let's argue for a second that she brought it on herself (should that matter?). But when do you finally leave someone alone? Does that give people moral carte blanche to engage in shaming and other ugly behavior about her personal life? But no one really questions their right to do so, I hadn't even noticed it myself until my friend mentioned it. And why are people so eager to engage in ugly behavior in the first place that they're looking for socially "legitimate" opportunities to throw stones?

The American Conservative story reminded of the creepy Shirley Jackson short (fictional but not so far-fetched) story, "The Lottery." Someone gets chosen completely randomly to get stoned, but that doesn't matter -- once the person became marked, everything was fair game because they had the sanction of the group.

Bully's bully

I've always considered myself a bully's bully. Bullies are particularly attractive targets to me because they are very adept at swaying the beliefs and behavior of mobs. As I have said before, mob mentality freaks me out. I feel like attacking the bully is like cutting off the head of the mythical mob beast, or to mix a metaphor, a mob is nothing without its ringleader.

Recently I have been exposed to a bully in a work setting. I never had much interaction with this person before, and then only in positive ways, which was why I was so surprised when a coworker of mine confided that this person makes his work life hell. This particular bully doesn't have any real authority. If anything, my coworker friend is the bully's superior, so the bully is always careful to cover any suspicious activity with passive aggressive behavior. The bully also preemptively attacks my friend's character and credibility so when/if my friend ever complains, he's not going to seem credible. This is a classic manipulative tool, making it seem like your target has a personal vendetta against you so when he reacts (seemingly unprovoked), he = crazy and you = victim. (I feel like this is the plot of many a cat/dog fighting antique cartoon. I also feel like sociopath may have been the inventor of the popular myth -- the completely unjustified personal vendetta.)

Before my friend warned me, I was lulled by the bully's seeming good-nature and charms. I disclosed valuable information, like what projects I was involved with, how things were working out, etc. The bully lulled me into a false sense of security by talking about his own personal details -- disappointing children, bumps in the road of life, etc. The bully did not seem like a threat at all, and I started to question my friend's assessment. But the bully quickly showed his true colors -- yelling, screaming, picking on his legitimate inferiors. I suddenly saw so clearly how the bully was targeting me indirectly -- asking me about my current projects because he wanted to help me fail.

As the bully was saying goodnight to everyone, I pulled him aside, put my hand on his shoulder and said, "You know, I have to apologize to you.Ii made a joke this morning that was in poor taste. You asked how everything was going with my new project and I said 'So far so good.' I didn't mean to imply that i wasn't giving the project my full attention and skill. On the contrary, I am 100% dedicated to the success of this project. I think I was just trying to be self-deprecating, but I realize now that the joke fell flat." Such a non sequitor, uncomfortably sincere apology where no apology was expected will always catch the receiving party off-guard. Granted, the apology was really for nothing, it was really more of a brag. All the better. It confuses the receiving party and makes him feel as if you are very sensitive/weak/vulnerable (even though you aren't), and therefore not at all a threat. They suddenly feel as if they too should be apologizing about things, or explaining, or something -- ANYTHING -- just to fill the oppressively awkward silence while you keep staring into their eyes with your hand meaningfully on their shoulder. I stood there and listened to the bully spill. "Well, it's true that the last few people in charge of that project got fired, and I was just thinking, maybe... but maybe you'll be different..." See what has happened here? I have forced my opponent to show his hand. He has acknowledged that he is aware of what my project is (even though he pretended to have no clue the day before), its history, its importance, his obvious interest in it, etc. It doesn't really matter if his cards are aces or deuces, in a world where bluffing and image mean everything (or almost everything), I immediately gain the upper hand. And he knows it.

The next day I was all deflection. He asked me a question, and I gave him a non-answer and asked him questions back, even for the most meaningless of things. "What did you get for lunch?" "Oh you know, same old. What did you get for lunch?" "What are you working on now?" "Little this, little that. What are you working on?" The terser the answer, the more offputting it is, like someone returning your baseline hits from the net. You pin him there. You want him to know that for every worthless piece of information he may get from you, you are getting twice the value and 10X the number. The bully, now desperate and sensing the shift in power, quickly progressed from "chummy" sideways questions to direct inquiries. "So how did that project turn out yesterday? Did it get approved?" Wouldn't you like to know.

Moral of this story: empaths who complain about sociopaths, who do you think will fight the bullies among you if we're not around? Empaths can be just as horrible (if not more so) than sociopaths, and some of them don't even realize it. If we are all locked up in your dream sociopath gulag, who will protect you from yourselves? We may not be the only ones who can beat you at your own little bully games, but we are certainly the most ruthlessly efficient about it.