Why do people enjoy bringing others down at their weakest?

Post Reply New Topic

We are mainly controlled by our genes - it's just that it's so ingrained in our 'normal' behaviour that we don't notice it and because there's such a wide variety of human behaviour.
It's all 99% focused on reproducing, protecting offspring and gaining advantages for family/offspring though.

Most people seek to gain advantages either over or alongside others and to get these advantages they will either act in an altruistic or spiteful manner - it's two sides of same coin. Obviously some people won't be doing this either through having no interest in it or being actively against such behaviour but then they can often not be aware of the existence of the 'game' and fall foul of it/be exploited.

It's all a battle for resources at the end of the day and the more alliances a person has with others the better their advantage.

Perhaps but I doubt you've done a statistical survey. People do behave consciously against their instincts, all the time. Daily. Culture conditions them to do so. If that were not true, every trip to the grocery store would be an attempt at robbery or theft.

Of course, cooperation does further individual interest.



If that were true, then there'd be a correlation between friends and wealth. But in fact there are many people with many friends who do not do well, and many with only a moderate number of friends who do extremely well. In fact this is rather common.

It depends more on the advantages a person has and their capabilities. Friends really don't help that much in terms of getting ahead in life. Social skills do, but not friends per se. They won't earn your diploma for you or help you through a job interview. If you're really lucky, they might not bring their own problems down on your head. It's mostly an illusion young people get because of being institutionalized in school, and institutions operate much differently than the outside world.

Yes I said civilisation/the law prevents most people from acting on their instincts - that's not to say those instincts aren't there though - it becomes more advantageous to not rob someone than rob them if you've got a job/reputation to maintain etc but if you have nothing to lose, robbery is more likely to occur - it's all still about level of advantage and risk. Robbery and theft just aren't advantageous enough for most people most of the time. Witness behaviour in a riot though when everyone is looting - the norm of it not being advantageous changes if enough people are seen to be taking part. In the UK a man who tried to stand up to looters got killed so in what way was 'not looting' advantageous to him?

I disagree on the correlation between friends and wealth as it totally depends on the nature of the friend and the resources they have available to them. If your friend is a millionaire and shares his money with you you only need this one friend to gain a major advantage. But your millionaire friend may have a vast network of contacts and allies (not necessarily friends but sometimes so) who have helped him to build up his business and become a millionaire. You are therefore hitching a ride on the back of his wide network if you are his friend ie you didn't have to make all these contacts yourself.

Also, I don't see alliances and resources in just monetary terms - it's often in terms of social support - people to talk to; people to ensure a person's mental health remain stable enough to take part in society. This could be alliance through family as well as friend.

I would say that generally people with more social alliances and friendships tend to be more mentally healthy/socially functional than those with less.

I was gonna make a topic just like this earlier. I had an assessment earlier about disability benefits at a government health office. In the waiting room there was a group of 3 people, 2 guys and one girl who were all aged about 20ish. They were openly and LOUDLY laughing and mocking the other people in the waiting room, in a really obnoxious and obvious way. They laughed at an older foreign guy who came in because he couldnt understand the receptionist, they laughed at a bigger woman and made jokes about her being there because she was obese and at a thin guy who came in saying he was like a streak of piss and was probably claiming for anorexia. Everyone just tried to ignore them even though you could tell some people were really offended.

Whats wrong with people, why would they go to a place like that and laugh at the people there who are unwell through no fault of their own. Really really made me angry, the assessments are stressful and invasive enough without having to go through that added stress.

They werent exactly perfect looking themselves, they looked like druggies to be honest, probably claiming to support their habit. I dont wish harm on many people, but this world could do without insensitive pricks like that.

Seems like in the end it didn't really make you feel better about yourself.

Yeah I think I will stick with the bullying is not justified idea....actually.

Not to mention mentally healthy, mature adults don't bully. Except in the case of children, it's an aberrant behaviour practiced by toxic people. We live in a dysfunctional society so the latter are common - people are damaged and mentally unhealthy.

Depends who's doing the justifying - to the bully, with the aim of upsetting another person for kicks, if the person gets upset, it will be justified as they will have got their kick. That's logical.
I'm not saying bullying is good, just that it's a natural part of human behaviour that isn't going to go away. People have to learn coping skills. I don't cope with bullying well at all but I know it's me who has to learn to deal with it as bullies won't change. That's common sense. But if you prefer to try and rehabilitate the bullies and teach them the error of their ways be sure to report back to us on how you're getting along with that

So if humans are smart enough to split up resources why then must there be some endless battle over resources. Its just an attempt at justifying 'social darwanism.'

It's because some people watch too much wrestling. They want to emulate the wrestlers they see. They think they are Rowdy Roddie Pipers. If they only knew how ridiculous they look.

No I disagree. People may not like bullying but I think it's a half and half thing - half will do it, half not. It's just a variation in human behaviour that gains some people an advantage. A moral construct can be placed upon it, yes, but look at the animal kingdom - they do similar things. Chimps will chase and kill another chimp - if humans do this it's seen as evil but with animals it's not evil - why is this? Both are the organism acting in a natural way but one has placed ethical/moral/religious constructs over it's behaviour. A good thing yes, but that doesn't detract from the instinctive nature of the behaviour, whatever you might think of it.

Take morality out of it, I know bullying isnt morally right, I'm talking evolutionary advantage.
If someone has a good job and another person bullies them the the extent they get mentally ill and too depressed to work and leave their job then the person who bullied them gets promoted into their job are you telling me the bullying didn't put the bully in an advantageous position? It's not a right/wrong issue in these terms, its an 'Is this behaviour going to give me an advantage' one and you would be surprised at how many humans operate on this principle I'm sorry to say. Deny it by all means but in my opinion it's only too true.

I am anything but mentally healthy and I don't know how mature I am but I don't bully, I never really saw the point in trying to make someone feel bad just for the hell of it, or to make ones self feel better or whatever.

They may be there, but they are not being acted upon because of consciousness.



Right. It is not a zero-sum game. People are going to look to make things better for themselves - what else would you expect? For people to look to make things worse for themselves? They do this, of course, because of maladaptive instincts and irrational behaviours all the time. But conscious rationality does not allow one to make a situation worse for no particular reason.



In the same way that looting was advantageous to some fellow that got killed by participating. That's the flaw in your example. People die on both sides of that equation. Both are seeking the same thing - to establish control of property.



Well, now I think we're in la-la land. Millionaires don't hand out money to their friends. Family yes, friends ... generally not.

Then in this particular aspect you're mentally healthy and mature. These things have different aspects.

Then it is settled humans have not moved beyond the animal kingdom, and so we should all go out and behave like wild carnivorous animals with no impulse control.

Also in that little senerio I'd say sure the bully wins, but I really don't think their advantage was worth the damage it may have did to the person who's job they took.

I guess what I was getting at is...mentally ill people should not get all the blame for bad things that happen. I mean there is no reason a healthy person can not indulge in behavior like bullying there is nothing that makes mentally ill people more likely to bully. So I guess I just don't like the idea one has to be mentally healthy and mature not to bully...but that may not be what you were implying.

But I guess I see your point.