Yes... but realizing that the column you linked obviously wasn't the whole story I looked for the study itself (which the column didn't even bother to name). The name of the study is "Survival of the Fittest and the Sexiest: Evolutionary Origins of Adolescent Bullying" and it was published in the "Journal of Interpersonal Violence". You can't read the full text without a paid Sage Publishing account, but the SFU paper published an article on the study that goes into a lot more detail than the little blurb in the column you linked.

Yes, the study says that bullies are more socially successful and the other study says they are more sexually successful. I don't know about you, but I didn't need a college funded research project to tell me that the kids who beat up other kids are more popular and get laid more than the kids who got beat up.

The other stuff you said about them being generally more successful in life and making more money isn't mentioned anywhere in the column or the SFU article. That's just an inference you made based on a second hand blurb by a columnist on Metro. The study was done on 133 Vancouver kids in 2015. With the exception of which of those kids were seniors last year, the kids in that study are -still- high school students so it's a bit early to say how successful they are in life in general and ignores a ton of other factors like academic prowess that factor heavily into the kind of college or career you can get into after high school.

https://www.sfu.ca/criminology/newsandevents/criminology-news/sfu-study-finds-biological-explanation-for-youth-bullying.html

From the article:

"A study from SFU researchers provides new evidence for why the widespread problem of bullying continues to persist. The study finds that youth bullying may be derived from evolutionary development, providing implications for approaching anti-bullying strategies in schools.

Supporters of evolutionary process theory (EPT) argue that there is a biological explanation for bullying – it may be an adaptive behavior that provides individuals with higher status. The results of this study show that bullies do gain specific benefits from their aggression.

“The results do not, by any means, suggest that bullying is ‘ok’ because it may have genetic explanations. Research consistently demonstrates negative implications of bullying in both the short- and long-term, and it should not be acceptable in our schools,” says SFU criminologist Jennifer Wong, lead researcher on the study. “However, this information is useful because it provides us with new options for addressing bullying behaviour.”"

• "“We advocate re-directing bullying tendencies to more productive and constructive channels, including supervised competitive activities. This would allow youths to demonstrate their prowess and establish rank in a safer environment without victims,” says Wong."

-Byshop

@still_vicious said:

@FireEmblem_Man said:

@mark1974 said:

@FireEmblem_Man said:

So, you're okay with them spreading the disease and continue on having unprotected sex? That's the message based on, yes they're telling you they have STD's but they're also telling you to stay the fuq away from them :P

Where are they saying that they aren't telling people about it? All I see is them telling people about it. If they tell someone they have an STD and they still want to have unprotected sex with them then I cant have a problem with that I guess. Is that whats going on? I have to admit I'm not really in the loop on this thing.

How about this?

A tenant of regressive liberals is trying to make obviously unhealthy or blatantly bad things ok; weight, violence.....stds....

weight- Right wingers are more often obese than liberals = Fact!

Violence- The left is much more anti-violence than the right = Fact!

STD- Ok you got me there, the left has a lot more sex than the right so it stands to reason probably has more STD's.

The right tries to make nothing ok, they are uptight and have sticks up their asses. They are anti-fun, anti- everything. Must be exhausting.

Do you folks remember Sandra Fluk who complained and testified before Nancy Pelosi because she liked to sleep around and wanted the government to pay for her birth control pills and when the folks on the right complained it was a war pn women. Now they are getting STD what do they want now.

How about this?

I guess the same could have been said back in the days of the monarchy. The poor will always be poor and no one will ever rise above the cast they were born into, you'd be crazy to think otherwise. Then The French revolution happened. Or the days of the Spanish inquisition. Not long ago in America Black people were slaves and women didn't vote. Don't be a part of the problem. Get on the right side of history. Aim for the best possible situation. Why fight progress?

@still_vicious said:

@Nick3306 said:

@still_vicious said:

@GreySeal9 said:

The absolutely hero worship of Bernie supporters is another thing I dislike about his movement.

LOL

CNN's parent company has donated a very large amount of money to Hillary's campaign, get better evidence next time.

The "I disagree the the story therefore the source is bad" argument.

Do you have proof they're wrong?

I was simply stating a fact, a fact that you can check and see was accurate.

This is the exact same site who held a poll asking who won a debate and over 75% of the people said bernie won. CNN then removed the poll from their website and ran a story saying Hillary won the debate. I have no evidence to prove them wrong as that would be impossible to obtain(as would the evidence to prove them right), I am simply stating that they are not a reliable source due to how much money they have given to one candidate. I am not siding with one candidate over another, just using logic.

Doesn't have to be. Some of us would like the world to progress beyond that mentality but we are held back by the rest of you that seem all too content to look down on those you perceive as beneath you. Could you kindly get out of the way?