(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:53 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:43 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Kids do what they're taught. They have to be taught intolerance.

That is not true at all. Kids act out human nature and stages of development. Sadly, teasing and ridicule is a natural phenomenon that occurs in childhood.

Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching
tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

I'll ask you the same question- how many kids do you have? How many friends do those kids have? How much time have you spent on the playground interacting, coaching, watching, listening to them?

Not some abstract booklearnin' stuff, I've done more than enough of that myself.

Actual experience .

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:53 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That is not true at all. Kids act out human nature and stages of development. Sadly, teasing and ridicule is a natural phenomenon that occurs in childhood.

Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

(12-17-2013 07:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:53 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That is not true at all. Kids act out human nature and stages of development. Sadly, teasing and ridicule is a natural phenomenon that occurs in childhood.

Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching
tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

I'll ask you the same question- how many kids do you have? How many friends do those kids have? How much time have you spent on the playground interacting, coaching, watching, listening to them?

Not some abstract booklearnin' stuff, I've done more than enough of that myself.

Actual experience .

It doesn't matter. Personal experience is not objective, and subject all sorts of biases. If your kids turned out a certain way (or someone elses), you can't tell me if it's biological or environmental without a more representative sample and some sort of comparison to another sample. Even then, you can only suggest that it's one or the other (or both).

(12-17-2013 07:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching
tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

I'll ask you the same question- how many kids do you have? How many friends do those kids have? How much time have you spent on the playground interacting, coaching, watching, listening to them?

Not some abstract booklearnin' stuff, I've done more than enough of that myself.

Actual experience .

It doesn't matter. If your kids turned out a certain way (or someone elses), you can't tell me if it's biological or environmental without a more representative sample and some sort of comparison to another sample. Even then, you can only suggest that it's one or the other (or both).

So what? We've been told above that this supposed "intolerance" is taught and that it, by and large has to be a by product of what occurs in the home. That if a 4 yo makes the observation that someones skin is black this is "pathetic" and some kind of sign that Mommy or Daddy are whispering sweet racism into juniors ear at beddy-by time. Teaching intolerance.

And frankly it does matter. Everything in life isn't some control group academic navel gazing activity. Actually going out and simply observing interactions and how schit works is just as valuable as the next throw-away "study" in Nature Magazine. You should try it sometime.

(12-17-2013 07:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching
tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

I'll ask you the same question- how many kids do you have? How many friends do those kids have? How much time have you spent on the playground interacting, coaching, watching, listening to them?

Not some abstract booklearnin' stuff, I've done more than enough of that myself.

Actual experience .

It doesn't matter. If your kids turned out a certain way (or someone elses), you can't tell me if it's biological or environmental without a more representative sample and some sort of comparison to another sample. Even then, you can only suggest that it's one or the other (or both).

So what? We've been told above that this supposed "intolerance" is taught and that it, by and large has to be a by product of what occurs in the home. That if a 4 yo makes the observation that someones skin is black this is "pathetic" and some kind of sign that Mommy or Daddy are whispering sweet racism into juniors ear at beddy-by time. Teaching intolerance.

And frankly it does matter. Everything in life isn't some control group academic navel gazing activity. Actually going out and simply observing interactions and how schit works is just as valuable as the next throw-away "study" in Nature Magazine. You should try it sometime.

What do you think social science is? All we do is observe people; we don't make things up behind closed doors.

(12-17-2013 07:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

So this laboratory of which they speak? Is this an outdoor lab, where real interaction without controls over behavior, movement, play options etc are all present? A true "open" environment? How many kids have simply whipped it out and peed in one of these labs for instance? Playgrounds or sports practices of little ones? Happens pretty frequently. THAT kind of openness.

(12-17-2013 08:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

So this laboratory of which they speak? Is this an outdoor lab, where real interaction without controls over behavior, movement, play options etc are all present? A true "open" environment? How many kids have simply whipped it out and peed in one of these labs for instance? Playgrounds or sports practices of little ones? Happens pretty frequently. THAT kind of openness.

Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_observation

I'm not sure where your idea of science being restricted to the lab came from. There dozens of methods, and it's up to the researcher to decide what is appropriate for the question they want to answer.

(12-17-2013 07:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Did you learn that from a developmental psychologist, or are you just making that up?

I'll give you a hint: genetics play a large role in aggression, but environment plays a larger role.

How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

Name one culture where it doesn't exist.

(12-17-2013 08:35 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

Name one culture where it doesn't exist.

That's not even the point.

The point is that it is human nature, and no amount of rainbows and "buy the world a coke" liberalism is going to stamp out teasing among children.

(12-17-2013 08:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The point is that it is human nature, and no amount of rainbows and "buy the world a coke" liberalism is going to stamp out teasing among children.

This.

Nor explain it in some "control group" like way. It is what it is, spontaneity, impulse, ne'ner ne'ner, ne'neeer ner. or whatever else. Seems to me it's a lot of wanting to ascribe motive to something that's simply action or reaction.

Now we're told that's not kids being kids, but kids being "intolerant" or somehow abusive, I guess.

Welcome to the demise of a once great nation...

(12-17-2013 08:35 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  How can you breath with your head so far up there? Humans are animals with animal instincts. Kids ridicule and tease because they are developing their social roles - which leads to mating competition around adolescence. It's not politically correct like you want it to be. It just is. This mechanism is designed to make sure the strongest genes mate with the strongest genes. This is why we have social cliques and classes. I am not saying it is fair, right or wrong. It just is.

It means that in many ways were are still very primitive. Teaching tolerance definitely creates a better environment, but it does not stamp out human nature.

Why do liberals always think they can play God?

Is your opinion based on evidence? Have you reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of intervention techniques on bullying? You sound very certain of your opinion, and I'd like to know where it came from.

[1] Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

[2] Gray, P. (2009). Play as the foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of Play, 1, 476-522.

[3] Lee, R. B. (2003). The Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd edition.

[4] Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

I'm curious if you read these.

For example:

Quote:These caveats aside, existing evidence suggests that there is
considerable cross-cultural variation in teasing practices. Once
again, the concept of face proves useful in generating hypotheses
for cross-cultural comparisons. That is, members of certain cultures
are believed to have heightened concerns about face, such as
the Japanese (e.g., Doi, 1996). In cultures defined by the motive to
preserve one's own and others' face, one would expect teasing to
be more likely than direct provocation but less likely than avoiding
such commentary in the first place. One would also expect the
teasing that does occur to be less hostile. Preliminary findings from
our own laboratory are consistent with this hypothesis. To be
specific, in a study that used the nickname, storytelling paradigm,
we found that Asian American romantic partners were less hostile
and used more off-record markers in their teasing than European
American romantic partners (Campos, Keltner, Peng, & Gonzaga,
2000).
Other studies have yielded findings that are consistent with our
analysis. Observations of interactions between caregivers and children
indicate that whereas in many White, middle-class American
families mothers infrequently tease infants and children (although
fathers may do so, particularly their young sons; Gleason & Greif,
1983; Gleason & Weintraub, 1976), in many other ethnic and
cultural groups known for directness of communication (and reduced
face concerns) mothers and fathers and other community
members frequently tease children of both sexes (Clancy, 1986;
Demuth, 1986; Eisenberg, 1986; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986). Of course, these are
only informal comparisons, and face concerns have not been
directly measured in these cultural groups. Nevertheless, these
findings suggest that face may allow for comparison of teasing
practices across cultures. Culture-related variation in face concerns
is likely to also influence the contexts in which teasing arises and
the ability to understand teasing.

What about this article would lead me to believe that there is a biological basis to teasing?

Name one culture where it doesn't exist.

dma, go spend any time on most any Elementary playground and see how often a teacher has to settle disputes between boys mostly - and there is often teasing involved.

You can spout "control groups" and "studies" till hell freezes over and all of us that have been parents/teachers already KNOW that boys, in particular, tease the crap out of each other all the way into and including adulthood. As we get older, we normally become more aware and confine the teasing to mundane things, but kids - and boys in particular - can be and often are brutal when it comes to e'ffing with each other.

Now - go stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.

(12-11-2013 08:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:32 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's comments like this that honestly make me believe libertarians are just another arm of the DNC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romneycare

Nah, you just drink the kool aid too much and treat politics too much like a team sport. Libertarians are driven by principle. You are driven by a collection of issues -- which have ideological and morally conflicting implications -- and above all a hatred of "the other guys".

That doesn't tell me anything. That is my observation from watching libertarians. Libertarians help democrats win elections....period.

How so?

By making it very hard to get an edge. By constantly attacking the GOP and aligning themselves with the liberal media's attack on the GOP. By diluting the vote.

By that logic then GOP is just another arm of the DNC, b/c they constantly attack libertarians, and align themselves with the media's attack on liberty.

Quote: I honestly don't see much difference between the common libertarians and liberals.

I honestly don't see much difference between big-gov't GOP and big-gov't Dems.

Quote: They kind of remind me of anarcho socialists with their attitude on entities like the police.

The GOP often reminds me of statists and tyrants with their attitude on entities like the NSA, DEA, and militant SWAT teams.

Quote: Other than that, I don't see much of the fiscal savings but a whole lot of the social liberalism.+

Other than that, I don't see any fiscal savings, but a whole lot of power, social control and profiteering.

Quote:We are at war with liberalism. That will only escalate. At some point the libertarians are going to have to choose. The GOP is the only weapon we have against liberalism - and libertarians promote much of the liberal agenda.

No, we are at war with tyranny, in many guises including liberalism. That will only escalate. At some point the rank-and-file GOP members are going to have to choose. The GOP is decidedly not a weapon against tyranny- instead promoting much of the statist and control agenda.

Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

(12-18-2013 10:38 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

I don't think most liberals would agree that the Democrat party is corrupt and power hungry. In fact, most liberals would jump off a cliff if a Democrat party official told them to. That is the difference and the real reason why the Democrats are winning right now. Conservative voters are smarter and more in tune with what is going on beyond what the elite are saying is going on and aren't going to waste their money supporting the republican party until the fall in line real conservatives like Paul and Cruz.

(12-18-2013 10:38 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

No. We can agree that one party hasn't done a very good job communicating to the public, while the other party is based in Marxism - lying to the public to gets its agenda passed.

(12-18-2013 10:37 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 08:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 07:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romneycare

Nah, you just drink the kool aid too much and treat politics too much like a team sport. Libertarians are driven by principle. You are driven by a collection of issues -- which have ideological and morally conflicting implications -- and above all a hatred of "the other guys".

That doesn't tell me anything. That is my observation from watching libertarians. Libertarians help democrats win elections....period.

How so?

By making it very hard to get an edge. By constantly attacking the GOP and aligning themselves with the liberal media's attack on the GOP. By diluting the vote.

By that logic then GOP is just another arm of the DNC, b/c they constantly attack libertarians, and align themselves with the media's attack on liberty.

Quote: I honestly don't see much difference between the common libertarians and liberals.

I honestly don't see much difference between big-gov't GOP and big-gov't Dems.

Quote: They kind of remind me of anarcho socialists with their attitude on entities like the police.

The GOP often reminds me of statists and tyrants with their attitude on entities like the NSA, DEA, and militant SWAT teams.

Quote: Other than that, I don't see much of the fiscal savings but a whole lot of the social liberalism.+

Other than that, I don't see any fiscal savings, but a whole lot of power, social control and profiteering.

Quote:We are at war with liberalism. That will only escalate. At some point the libertarians are going to have to choose. The GOP is the only weapon we have against liberalism - and libertarians promote much of the liberal agenda.

No, we are at war with tyranny, in many guises including liberalism. That will only escalate. At some point the rank-and-file GOP members are going to have to choose. The GOP is decidedly not a weapon against tyranny- instead promoting much of the statist and control agenda.

You and I will have to agree to disagree - simply because I look at this from a world history standpoint. Moving left is what causes all empires to fall. Social liberalism included. Rome is a prime example. It's absurd to think the GOP is pushing the same tyrannical agenda that the DNC has forced upon the public through legislation like Obamacare and taxation.



The both party mantra IMO is just a smokescreen to keep the left in power.

(12-18-2013 10:59 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:38 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

No. We can agree that one party hasn't done a very good job communicating to the public, while the other party is based in Marxism - lying to the public to gets its agenda passed.

Do you think that the RNC has your best interest at heart? Did you completely support Romney and McCain?

(12-18-2013 11:07 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:59 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:38 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

No. We can agree that one party hasn't done a very good job communicating to the public, while the other party is based in Marxism - lying to the public to gets its agenda passed.

Do you think that the RNC has your best interest at heart? Did you completely support Romney and McCain?

Compared to the Democrats, yes. Yes a 1000xs

(12-18-2013 11:18 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 11:07 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:59 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:38 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Can we all agree that both parties are corrupt and power hungry and do not do anything to better the lives of the people of this country?

No. We can agree that one party hasn't done a very good job communicating to the public, while the other party is based in Marxism - lying to the public to gets its agenda passed.

Do you think that the RNC has your best interest at heart? Did you completely support Romney and McCain?

Compared to the Democrats, yes. Yes a 1000xs

That is not the question that I asked.