User:Penbat/narcissism
Some clinical consequences of introjection: Gaslighting V Calef… - Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1981
Gaslighting: A marital syndrome GZ Gass… - Contemporary family therapy, 1988 - Springer
Dialogues of doubt: The psychology of self-doubt and emotional gaslighting in adult women and men K Portnow - 1996
On the double whammy and gaslighting. T Dorpat - Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy, 1994
Dialogues of doubt:--the psychology of self-doubt and emotional gaslighting in adult women and men/ KE Portnow 1996
Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries It seems almost inevitable these days that there will be some personality disorders in a senior management team. (ref The Dark Side of Leadership - Business Strategy Review 14(3) Autumn (2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kets_de_Vries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder
It seems almost inevitable these days that there will be some personality disorders in a senior management team. [1]
Semantics of Bullying in Schools[edit]
Bullying is defined as a “conscious, deliberate hostile activity intended to terrorize and harm others through the threat of further aggression.” School-age bullying is not limited to any national, religious, or ethno-cultural group. Statistics show that one out of four students are bullied by a peer, over 160,000 children choose to stay home from school due to the fear of being bullied, and lastly, bullying is responsible for childhood attempted suicides.[2]
While many gender-neutral terms have become popular among people, the term bully, remains a consistent. "It has been argued that the term bullying warrants recovery by deriving power from the potential effects of bullying: intimidation, humiliation, coercion, and silencing of the victims".[3]
Forms[edit]
Bullying is delivered in a number of different forms and is not limited to one gender. Forms include verbal, physical, direct, sexual harassment, and relational bullying. Bullying covers a wide range of age groups but is particularly prominent between the ages of 9-18. Boys tend to do more bullying than girls, especially in the form of physical bullying. However girls are just as guilty. They usually tend to bully in verbal forms.[4]
Understanding the semiotics of school-age bullying may increase the chances of stopping the problem before drastic measures are taken by the victims, such as suicide. Bully, target, and bystander are labels that have been created to help describe and understand the roles of the individuals involved in the vicious cycle. Barbara Coloroso, an expert in the field of bullying prevention, explains that the labels serve as descriptors of a child’s behavior rather than permanently labeling the child.[5]
Associations[edit]
Bullying is usually associated with an imbalance of power. A bully has a perceived authority over another due to factors such as size, gender, or age.[6] Bullies are not identifiable by their appearance or group identification; rather we need to focus on how they act. The definition of bullying briefly describes actions that are exhibited by an individual that is playing the role of a bully.[7] Boys find motivation for bully from factors such as not fitting in, physically weak, short-tempered, who their friends were, and the clothes they wore. Girls on the other hand, result from factors such as, not fitting in, facial appearance, emotional, overweight, and academic status.[8]
Individuals that choose to be a bully are not typically born with the characteristic. It is a result from the treatment they receive from authority figures, including parents. Bullies often come from families that use physical forms of discipline.[9] This somewhat turns the tables on the bully, making them the victim. Unfortunately, this leads to a strategy of bully or be bullied.[10]
Identifying[edit]
To profile a bully is a bit harder than suspected. They are usually viewed as loud and assertive and may even be hostile in particular situations. Bullies are not usually the largest kid in a class, but may be part of the popular or cool kids group.[11] The bullies that are part of a popular group may not come from intense disciplinary homes, rather they gain acceptance from the peer group by bullying a victim.[12]
Much research has been conducted on the profile of a victim making it easier to identify specific behavior. Victims of bullying typically are physically smaller, more sensitive, unhappy, cautious, anxious, quiet, and withdrawn. They are often described as passive or submissive. Possessing these qualities make these individuals vulnerable to being victimized. Unfortunately bullies know that these students will not retaliate, making them an easy target that can be targeted on a daily basis.[13]
A general semantics term called indexing is useful in dealing with the different types of bullying. Indexing is a way to categorize of signs. This allows educators and parents a way to assist in recognizing how bullying behavior varies. By understanding and recognizing the different varieties of behavior it helps to allow flexibility in the responses to the variations.[14]
An interesting result from previous research states that the majority of children possess anti-bullying attitudes. However there is a small amount of children that admire those that bully and show little empathy for those that get bullied.[15]
Intervention[edit]
Despite the large number of individuals that do not agree with bullying practices, there a very few that will intervene on behalf of the victim. These individuals are labeled bystanders and unfortunately usually tend to lean toward the bully’s side. Research states that bystanders are involved in either teasing the target or egging on the bully in 85 percent of the incidents.[16]
However, in most bullying incidents, bystanders usually do nothing. This can be problematic because it allows the bully to continue behaving badly.[17] There are a wide variety of reasons why children choose not to intervene. Typically they worry that they will make the situation worse or risk becoming the next victim. Due to the fear factor that children experience as the bystanders, "a decline in anti-bully attitudes the older the child gets has been reported." This points to the urgency for a better understanding of children’s attitudes to bullying and the factors that seem to predict these attitudes.[18]
Due to the urgency to better understand attitudes toward bullying a theory has been introduced to assist; the just world belief theory (BJW). "This is the idea that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get." Researchers are using this theory to understand why there is a decline of anti-bullying attitudes. The study determined that children do seek to understand, justify, and rectify the different injustices they come across in everyday life but further research is needed to relate the decline of anti-bullying attitudes being linked to the just world belief theory.[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmcbride (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
References[edit]
- ^ Manfred Kets de Vries The Dark Side of Leadership - Business Strategy Review 14(3), Autumn Page 26 (2003).
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ E. D. Nelson and R. D. Lambert, “Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower,” Qualitative Sociology, 2001: 83-106
- ^ Lee A. Beaty and Erick B. Alexeyev, “THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL BULLIES: WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US,” ADOLESCENCE, 2008: 4-11.
- ^ Lee A. Beaty and Erick B. Alexeyev, “THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL BULLIES: WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US,” ADOLESCENCE, 2008: 4-11.
- ^ Ruth Sylvester, “Teacher as Bully: Knowingly or Unintentionally Harming Students,” Morality in Education, 2011: 42-45
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ Lee A. Beaty and Erick B. Alexeyev, “THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL BULLIES: WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US,” ADOLESCENCE, 2008: 4-11
- ^ E. D. Nelson and R. D. Lambert, “Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower,” Qualitative Sociology, 2001: 83-106
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ Patricia Blake and Johann Louw, “Exploring high school learners’ perceptions of bullying,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2010: 111-118
- ^ E. D. Nelson and R. D. Lambert, “Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower,” Qualitative Sociology, 2001: 83-106
- ^ E. D. Nelson and R. D. Lambert, “Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower,” Qualitative Sociology, 2001: 83-106
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ Claire L Fox, Tracey Elder and Josephine Gater, “The association between adolescents' beliefs,” Britishjournalof Educational Psychology, 2010: 183-198
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ E. D. Nelson and R. D. Lambert, “Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower,” Qualitative Sociology, 2001: 83-106
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
- ^ Katherine Liepe-Levinson and Martin H. Levinson, “A General Semantics Approach to,” Institute of General, 2005: 4-16
'm amazed you didn't mention shakespeare's sonnets in your wiki article, sheeple! check out 'sin of self love' - number 62.
in the english renaissance, same sex relationships were largely identified with what became 'narcissism'. marlowe's 'hero and leander' explores this in some depth.
empathy[edit]
Narcissism and bullying[edit]
There's some of Dieter Zapf on workplace psychology in this book:http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dQhz3uFOuaYC.
Social psychologist Roy Baumeister identified that people high in self-esteem or narcissism are prone to bully others, to retaliate aggressively, and to be prejudiced against out-group members.[1]