bully7

On Bullying, cont'd.

My friend, Ms. D., is a bully. Her bullying stands in stark relief against her outstanding industrial qualities. Her loyalty is real when I face mechanical failure. Alas, mental hygene is not her bag: she dumbs me down. She "explains" by telling bystanders she's teaching me to say "no." Harried, my performance is poor. Onlookers see top-performance vanish. They see her antagonism. Connecting the dots is easy. They rely on me. They hate her.
     Maybe D's neural pathways aren't well developed between her upper-cortical mass (seat of logic) and her limbic system (seat of all emotion). The limbic system is atop the spine, also directing bodily functions. It's essentially the brain of a small animal. Above and forward of it, in the area behind our eyes, is our cortical mass. Higher-thinking resides here, effecting self restraint. D has the robust cortical processing capability, which is necessary for advanced industrial creativity. But, alternately, she's the purely emotional being: like a wild animal. But why?
      Dianetics would "cure" her using Freudian confrontational desensitization. An "assayer" would use a primitive lie-detector for probing her sensitivities. These are explored until physiological responses decline. The "Reactive Mind" is thus tamed. This holds some promise but I'd think phobia might persist. Probing might add up (as it does with Chinese water torture).
    Transactional Analysis might reveal exess archaic Child influence atop conflicted Parent value-system input. D's first two years of life were presumably total chaos. the archetypal "I'm not OK, You're not OK" Child. I say this because she is embarrassable. This rules-out Berne's other undesireable quadrant: emergent "I'm OK, you're not OK" antisocial behavior disorder.
      Dana's "teaching" is blatant pretext: thinly veiled greed. But the treachery runs deeper. The word "no" signals agression. Attraction/fight-flight responses define the purely-emotional being. Dana is fiercely competitive. By challenging her, especially by saying no, we spring a trap: her game is on. Her small physical size is compensated-for by her willingness to use moves considered off-limits by the typical opponent. Life, limb, and liberty are at stake. The goal in her game is to maintain deadlock through resource depletion. But an escape-suitor must be in-waiting before the game can begin. This is where the cycle can be preempted: meaning she is only eligible to have one friend at a time. Her type must have prompted my old roommate, Randy Rogers, to say "Trust is not the word for what you do with a woman."

On thursday, march 25, 2004, a talk show on KSKA called the Infinite Mind discussed depression. Authoritative folks on the show appear to be in consensus about a few things worthy of note. Trauma can trigger depression onset. Depression-onset causes chemical changes to take place in the brain. Seretonin deficiency correlates directly to obsessive thinking. Once depression takes hold, it's a cycle that takes on a life of its own. To make things worse, depression worsens with age.

Winter conditions foster depression in Alaska.

The upshot is, stemming the contageon of depression is crucial here. Stopping bullying is crucial. Respectful behavior is crucial. These are not frills, as the disrespectful would have us believe. Respectfull behavior is a sudden-death game, where one slip may mean the disrespected find life altered for the worst, forever. Happyness that once propelled ambition and vitality, can be stripped of a patsy permanently. Bullies leave a snail-trail of loosers, dumbed down, depressed, and lethargic.

The sources of negative-energy around me insist I bear their pain, because I obviously have none. But one person saw the light. Her name is Marcy. We all get tested by the trials and tribulations of life. Her big test came when she started having an anxiety attack and she tried to put me in the middle of it. I told her I have my own pain, and I recited the difficulties I faced. I told her that maturity means shielding others from our internal anguish. I told her I needed my energy. She braced right up and never said another foul word. I respect her wholeheartedly for doing so. I just wish the job would be so easy with my other sourpuss acquaintiences.

A group of mathematicians, economists, anthropologists, and psychologists sought the optimal cooperative/competitive balance for amassing maximum wealth. Computer simulation compared 14 strategies and revealed tit-for-tat to be the winning strategy (in terms of retained earnings). Tit-for-tat presumes cooperative spirit. Betrayal draws one counter-betrayal. Then cooperation is once-again attempted, repeating as necessary.
Also of interest was the question of how sub-optimal behavior gets extinguished through natural selection. Evolutionary forces would likely express extinction of sub-optimal strategy through inate tendency. Researchers decided $100 would be given to a pair of people; one would receive and divide the cash, the second could settle for whatever was offered. Or the second person could reject the offer and neither would get any of the cash. Most offers of $40 or more were well received. Such offers were common. A $5 share was generally rejected as unfair. But why would anyone reject five bucks? Apparently, a patsy gladly forfeits $5 to strip a bully of his or her $95 share. Thus we do see an inate tendency toward fighting blantant greed.

Is reason a slave to desire?

I was being pretty firm with a pushy gal recently. I told her to behave respectfully. She said she didn't have to. She continued her disrespectfull behavior. Feeling snubbed, I went away miffed. I suddenly questioned this unspoken social contract we take for granted. I never considered that we presume to control one another. Within orderly society, control is granted, almost without limit. We trust others to act in our best interest. It works. And it has from the dawn of humankind. But why? My pushy pal-ette was right. Nobody owes anybody infinite control. She can be repulsive if she so pleases. It is my duty to flee.

I like respectful behavior. I would argue for its adoption. But what convincing argument could I make? In working around the shop, various dangers do exist. I can be startled by disrespectful behavior. For safety reasons bullies are advised to refrain from behaving disrespectfully while in harms' way. Do bullies need a perilous environment to keep them in check?