In Defense of Teasing | Hacker News Reader

In Defense of Teasing

nytimes.com

39 pointsrobg23 comments

Interesting article. I particularly liked this comment towards the end:

We must remember, though, that teasing, like so many things, gets better with age. Starting at around 11 or 12, children become much more sophisticated in their ability to hold contradictory propositions about the world — they move from Manichaean either-or, black-or-white reasoning to a more ironic, complex understanding. As a result, as any chagrined parent will tell you, they add irony and sarcasm to their social repertory. And it is at this age that you begin to see a precipitous drop in the reported incidences of bullying. As children learn the subtleties of teasing, their teasing is less often experienced as damaging.

It was an interesting article indeed, but I disagree with him that it "gets better with aging". Think about work-place verbal abuses disguised as jest, or parental "funny" put-downs spoken to adult children, or when an adult jokes about his/her spouses' performance in intimate situations or lack of financial prowess, or that he/she's "still chasing that making it big dream". It could still hurt, even when the subject of teasing realizes that it is meant to be funny.

The only thing that changes with age is our ability to laugh at ourselves along with them, or to laugh back, or the ability to distance ourselves from the abuser. The author has taken the acquiring of fight/flight defense mechanisms which comes with age for granted.

My other comment on this thread: the luxury of being able to fight is what distinguishes good teasing from bad teasing. Those of us who have ever been teased will know what I mean.

What exactly is the author arguing there? After becoming fluent in irony and sarcasm, you won't 'experience' that asshole beating you up at recess as 'damaging'?

I find it much more likely that the social punishment for being a bully greatly increases as the social structure builds, and it hits critical mass by the time children are 11-12 years old. The bullies then must become more subtle about their actions.

I agree that teasing definitely has its benefits, but this author's portrait of teasing as an innocent victim just has me confused.

Teasing is an extremely subjective social concept, and the same actions can be either teasing or bullying depending on the situation. If one of my friends comes up behind me and tackles me playfully (I'm a rugby player, so this isn't an uncommon occurrence), that's just an everyday part of life--but if a stranger took me to the ground while I was walking down the street, I wouldn't be so forgiving.

It's up to the teasee when teasing becomes bullying, and I think it's a great idea for schools to have policies against bullies.

If you enjoy it, it's not stalking, but if it is, you need to be able to get a restraining order.

I feel like throwing a red Voit dodgeball at the author's face, to see if he falls out of his ivory tower.

Two things:

1) I don't really know that this feels like an ivory tower tone. I mean, it was grounded in legit research or anecdotal evidence, not a lot of "this is how it ought to be" talk.

2) I'm pretty sure instances where someone is singled out to have dodgeballs thrown at one's face would be in the 'bullying' category, not 'teasing' which the author admits can be a difficult distinction.

Just saying.

Looks like you're next.

Unless I get some lunch money.

I was bullied as a kid and I still think this is a great article.

I want to be able to tease my friends affectionately without being labelled a bully, or poke fun at my partner without having people lecturing me on 'respect'.

In fact, I totally agree with what was said in the article about couples who tease - I DO have a happier relationship with my partner because we know each other well enough to feel comfortable taking the piss, and can laugh at each other and ourselves. (Most people don't seem to understand the dynamic of our relationship, but we've been together for 7 years so must be doing something right :) )

Confusion is the result of giving two different things (being playful and being hurtful) the same name (teasing).

There's significant gray area there, and plenty of room for confusion.

The confusion comes from the fact that "playful" and "hurtful" are, to a great extent, properties of the teasee rather than the teaser.

Fabienne [Pulp Fiction French Girl]: A pot. A pot belly. Pot bellies are sexy.

Butch [Bruce Willis]: Well you should be happy, 'cause you do [have a pot belly].

The net result of that conversation is NSFW in a positive way (here is the script http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7606/pulpscri.htm).

I've had a similar conversations, and it doesn't always go so well. In retrospect, I believe the reason is that Fabienne considered herself beautiful and knew Butch was merely trying to get a reaction from her. Previous ladyfajitas didn't all feel the same way about themselves.

It's worth remembering that Fabienne reacted the way she did because that's what Quentin Tarrintino wanted her to do.

I realize that. But I've also had positive reactions under similar circumstances. The movie quote just refers to a scene most of us can easily picture.

Another example; I'm a bit homophobic, and I get teased for it occasionally. A friend of mine from years ago also behaved homophobically, but reacted badly to the same teasing. He came out of the closet last year.

His bad reaction was due not to the input, but his own internal state.

Ah yes, this is an example of 'Wareing's Law' (which I named after someone I went to college with) who when asked why any event happened in a film (usually because someone was incredulous about the way a film was progressing) he would reply: "Because it's in the script!"

I miss the culture of acceptable teasing in Australia.

Well, judging by the lack of replies this seems like a sensitive issue with the nerds (geeks?).

totally. I read the title of the post and I winced. Not even because I was especially teased.

the gist of the article: "Where teasing provides an arena to safely explore conflict, it can join people in a common cause. Especially when they’re allowed to tease back."

I would change that to say that teasing is an arena to safely explore conflict and bring about positive benefits ONLY when the teasing is two-directional. This is the difference between brothers punching each other and a bully punching you in the gut -- if you're not allowed or unable to punch back or throw back a punchline, it's bullying.

Unlike physical hurt, teasing can be used as a tool to tie a group closer together by highlighting its contrast with another group, or more hurtfully, specific things about a single individual. Greasers and preppies, nerds and jocks, boys and girls, Inners and Outers...etc. The punchlines are often something the group has in common, but which the excluded individual(s) lack. In other words, hurtful teasing aims to alienate; helpful teasing aims to bind together. Unfortunately, sometimes the two can happen simultaneously.

Again, the difference here is the ability to counter. The article brings in all these cases where people are on retaliate-able positions, even when inequality exists. The situation with the frat boys would've resembled the Stanford Prison Experiment if the Inners were allowed to tease the Outers but not vice versa.

When I read the title, I thought it was going to be an ironic post by the NYT about post-barriers ("teasers.")

The article was too painful to read through, but the example given at the start seems like normal play, not teasing as I understand it.

Teasing is a part of the normal play. The author tries to distinguish between playful teasing and abusive teasing.

actually no, the author cited example after example of helpful, positive, team-building, playful teasing, but never actually said what separates that from abusive teasing. The closest he gets to doing so is to imply with "age" it doesn't hurt anymore because we are able to perceive the playfulness and not the hurt. Which we all know is not true.

Fifth paragraph:

The reason teasing is viewed as inherently damaging is that it is too often confused with bullying. But bullying is something different; it’s aggression, pure and simple. Bullies steal, punch, kick, harass and humiliate. Sexual harassers grope, leer and make crude, often threatening passes. They’re pretty ineffectual flirts. By contrast, teasing is a mode of play, no doubt with a sharp edge, in which we provoke to negotiate life’s ambiguities and conflicts. And it is essential to making us fully human.

nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined "teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge". Nowhere in the article does he explicate when teasing is done with intention to humiliate or embarrass, or teasing is done to someone whose social standing or physical attributes make it difficult for them to "play back", or when real harm is done despite best intentions. He seem to think that teasing is wholly a subjective game, where it's what you think it means that determines whether it is in seriousness or in jest, whether the joke is on your or with you. In other words he either intentionally ignored the defining line between good and bad teasing to make his "defense of teasing" point, or he actually believes that they are one and the same, that it's all in how you look at it, and how old you are. In the first case he is hiding evidence that counters his thesis intentionally, in the latter, he is disconnected with actual experiences of life.

He provides no examples of "this is bullying" and "this is teasing." But I'm able to figure out for myself which is which from the distinction he makes in the beginning.

The point of his article is to explore the good kinds of teasing, why it exists, and the benefits it has. I think you're faulting him for not doing something he never set out to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com