@RussH - I was being careful in my first post. I have to watch being judgmental at times. I really came here to this site to post about my own stuff. I am currently facing street harassment and it is a close cousin of bullying, though it is also related to sexual harassment.
It is possible that some are born bullies, but not completely due to a single gene. For instance, shamanic healing is discussed in other threads. When people are suffering, they will try nearly any port in a storm. They try legal drugs - with or without a prescription, illegal drugs, religion, the occult, etc. There are people who believe the occult and even reincarnation are real. Lets suppose for a moment they are. Then a bully could have did something really bad in another lifetime and a spiritual entity is bullying them, either by stalking, or taking them hostage. For instance, a family had a child that was very well behaved and obedient until age 4-5. Then he suddenly lied, fought, stole, destroyed things, etc. That's a bit too young to be that rebellious. A more distant family member thought that was a matter that was way beyond a discipline matter, and beyond any logical, earthly explanation and sought a shaman on his behalf. So the shaman was doing remote healing and discovered he had told a lie on someone in a past life that cost that other person their own life. Because of the lie, a mob ganged up on that person and killed them. Since then, that person's spirit decided to keep possessing the person each time they came back into a new body. The shaman convinced the spirit of the beating victim to forgive the boy and to continue on his own journey. At that moment, the boy was on a trip with his father, standing in the seat, shouting, being a brat, maybe throwing things out the window. Then he suddenly sat down and was rather quiet most of the trip. That night, he didn't resist going to bed when told. Others saw that he was suddenly starting to behave again. So entity possession could be one cause for bullying, though I guess an uncommon one.
But there may be some genetic predisposition. For instance, there is a "warrior gene" and possibly an "addiction gene." That somehow affects the body's reuptake of dopamine. So they keep less around than other people and thus seek to increase it with risky, violent, or addictive behaviors. Yet such a gene does not affect a person in a vacuum. There is no 1:1 correlation between having such genes and behavior. Often, the mothers smoked or used drugs during the pregnancy, and abuse, poverty, and abandonment are common themes. Take any factor by itself and the increase is likely not statistically noteworthy.
We can expand the rape comparison. There are said to be at least 3 main types of rapists. Probably the most common type is the angry/retaliatory rapist. They are probably the easiest of the 3 types to fight off, and probably the least likely to repeat it. They blow their stack and commit the crime.
Then the next most common rapist type would be the control/reassurance rapist. They tend to be more like predators, and they don't accept no for an answer. To them, rape is a competition and they never lose. They likely have a position of authority or prestige in the real world. A number of them put it off onto the victim ("you wanted it"), demand to know if the victim thinks they are "adequate," or they engage in "parenting" behaviors ("You might want to buy a bigger lock and get a dog so there won't be a next time"). In one sad case, a rapist of this sort was working for a rape crisis center, and he was also a sheriff's deputy or line officer. Thankfully, it was his law enforcement behaviors that leaked into his rapes that narrowed things down. Things like the way he held a flashlight, his shoes, giving "advice" to the victims, and a threat he made - "If you report this, I'll know and come after you." He didn't say he would find out, but that he'd know. So that implied he would see the reports, and generally only law-enforcement can do that. So cross-referencing a geographical analysis of the crime scenes against the homes of law-enforcement officers really narrowed things down. Then investigators focused on the ones who had problems or red flags within their profession, such as having been with several different agencies, having failed a psychiatric screening at some point, those who had problems taking orders and so on. That narrowed things more. Then maybe they did surveillance or something on whoever was left.
Then there is the 3rd type of rapist, the sexual sadist. This is the worst of all. They are likely mentally ill. Their motive is purely to inflict pain. They are true sadists, and other than killing them, there is likely no escape. Resisting and fighting turns them on, and submitting will only provoke them, and no matter what happens, they will likely make sure their victim is dead when they are done.
So I've wondered if there are 3 main types of bullies within that profile - the angry bully, the power bully, and the deeply disturbed bully. I imagine the treatment chances fall roughly into that order. If there were ways to give out coping skills and tools, it might be possible to eliminate the first type. Either keep them from becoming angry and bitter in the first place, or help reverse it as soon as possible. The second type would be harder to overcome, I imagine, particularly if they have parents and/or siblings with that personality affliction. Part of what makes it hard is that it often works and gives the person an edge at getting what they want. For the 3rd type, maybe earlier screening and intervention and more research into mental illness.
On the subject of anti-bullying programs, it seems the principles are really simple. One problem is that in terms of political correctness, some victims are seen as more worthy than others. For instance, gay-bashing is often seen as worse than harassing an obese person, and the heavy person is often blamed for what others do to them ("If you'd just lose 20-50 lbs...") or told that the bullying is there to help them. Another problem is the values needed to stop bullying may run counter to the goals of authority. For instance, what if society could be structured to where everyone interacted mainly with their own families and friends and only sought to broaden their circles in designated places? So everyone acts as insulated, rugged individualists to a degree and minds their own business. That is basically Conservatism, and the liberal/socialist/communist power structure has a problem with that, and I refuse to really get into politics here other than to say that truly stopping bullying or restructuring society to reduce it will meet political opposition. And the left-wing crowd in the US is waging a war on obesity and may feel stopping weight-based bullying would be a conflict of interest. I can't help but think there is a grand conspiracy to reduce the world's population, thus dumbing people down, getting them more sexually active in ways that don't produce offspring, promoting abortion, banning a lot of herbal and folk medications, modifying the food and taking land from farmers who use traditional farming methods, setting up ethnic violence while at the same time disarming responsible citizens, etc.
Even technology adds to the problem, and I don't mean just cyberbullying. The ability to communicate so freely almost creates an expectation for everyone to be approachable and open, and that is not compatible with every person. Then look at the number of sitcoms and movies where people smart off to others, humiliate and insult them, and how freely that can be done online and without consequences. So that gets carried into real life encounters.
I mentioned principles. That would include things like ignoring differences in others, realizing that other people's bodies and clothing choices are their own, realizing that everyone's sexuality is nobody's business except when it extends beyond acts between consenting adults (rape, sexual abuse of children/animals/incapacitated), everyone minding their own business, making a society that is conducive to an insular mindset, etc.
Then I wonder about tactics and policies. Like for instance, do sports have any place at all in public education? Why not just teach physical fitness and leave all competition out of it? If others want to be a part of organized sports, maybe that could be done by the local municipalities and done completely outside of any educational context. While I see the value of sports in that it promotes teamwork and leadership, improves health, and burns off aggression and energy, it also promotes bullying. Even the coaches and PE teachers often are adult bullies or are really people most don't want around their kids (but who hide it well). Of all the teacher types, these are the ones most likely to turn sour in terms of sexual misconduct. They often lack empathy or teach the wrong values. I wonder if sports organizations have an ethical role here too. For instance, the NFL was in the habit of giving more player suspension time for being found guilty of animal abuse than found guilty of domestic abuse. Participate in an animal fight involving dogs or roosters and get benched for a year, but slap your girlfriend around and sit out 3 games. But public pressure caused them to reevaluate that sort of thing. One thing that contributes to street bullying is excessive machismo (which could actually be male insecurity).
