The study seems to mention that the bullies have children at an earlier age. I'd be willing to guess that the relation between having more children and bullying is purely correlative and that neither factor has any direct impact on the other. Instead, it seems significantly more likely that impulsiveness drives both bullying behavior and unsafe sex, which then leads to more children.

It seems somewhat odd to me that, instead of addressing possible mechanisms of this correlation, the authors talk about how bullying is an evolutionary trait to pass on genes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

It seems somewhat odd to me that, instead of addressing possible mechanisms of this correlation, the authors talk about how bullying is an evolutionary trait to pass on genes.

Yeah, that's why I want to get my hands on the study. Maybe the authors did consider that but the article is misrepresenting the study.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

My guesses are that there ate multiple factors at play:

less educated people make more kids
"nice guys finish last" - assertive and more socially active people are more likely to find a partner and make children
forcing others to follow perceived social dynamics means internal pressure to follow them oneself; having children is a social norm and expectation that is expected to be followed

I'd try and look for papers to see if my guesses hold any water, but time eludes me.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago

Rapists are definitely bullies also.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think being assertive and more socially active meaning you're more likely to be a bully is a bit of a myth. Although the cliché school or work bully may be assertive and socially active, there are many unpopular and awkward people who bully those around them, and it just goes unnoticed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 19 hours ago

I think being assertive and more socially active meaning you're more likely to be a bully is a bit of a myth.

You are reversing the implication that I'm guessing 😉

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago

Each has a strong inverse relationship with socioeconomics.

Note

I am not saying being poor makes a kid a bully. My parent was poor and I only ever bullied bullies (and stopped when they stopped).

It’s just a nondescript statistical relationship. As to why it exists, I don’t know. My guess is greater baseline stress, less emotional support, and higher chance of domestic violence.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Is this evopsych bullshit?

"This study shows us that bullying seems to be associated with some meaningful outcomes that help explain why kids do it," Volk says. "This isn't just 'broken kids' doing bad behavior; it's getting them important things that matter."

Yeah, same as bandits.

Volk says the results support the idea that adolescent bullying is, at least in part, an evolutionary adaptation that may help individuals pass on their genes to future generations.

Yep, evopsych bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

calling this evopsych is like calling freud the father of psychology

this is just them saying something that they like the sound of, humans are fundamentally an extremely social species and there are way more things that go into passing on our genes than just having kids; being celibate and just raising the kids of your siblings is more efficient at spreading your genes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 19 hours ago

Wouldn't surprise me. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

At least they managed to avoid mentioning “modules”.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 22 hours ago

I guess a purely statistical consequence of this would be that the typical child has a greater-than-random chance of having a bully parent, and that chance increases with the number of siblings.