Talk:Anti-social behaviour

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceedol, TheDolphinou, Camdymond, Natasha.gibbs, Felicia416, Justinelacoste.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shahafklein.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomas2022, Embur15. Peer reviewers: PedB03.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LamearD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Error in Media impact section

in the intro to the article, this was said: In common English vernacular; anti-social is often used to describe those perceived to be excessively introverted, an incorrect though increasingly common usage. The correct term for an introverted person who is "not social" would be asocial; asocial means "avoidance of society" while antisocial means "hostile toward society".

Over exposure to media violence through various outlets such as television, movies, Internet, video games, and cartoons can contribute to antisocial behaviour by desensitizing a person to violence which may lead them to behave in aggressive and antisocial ways.

^ section above seems fine although it doesn't cite any sources.

• Social media outlets and technology such a cellphones, texting, twitter, computer addiction, and social networking can also enable a person to feel comfortable communicating less in person and more behind the technology. Sociologists are perplexed by the impacts of social networking Web sites. A Stanford University study shows a correlation between the number of times one uses a social networking site and the level of one's social isolation. The study revealed that people who spend proportionately more time on these types of sites experience a reduction in contact with their friends and family, attending social events, and talking on the phone.

^ this section makes the common English vernacular mistake warned against earlier. The social isolation talked about in this Stanford University study is asocial behavior, not antisocial.

what should i do about this error? just delete the section? i have decided to do so. if you think i'm wrong discuss it here. --Jgrro (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There are some comments about the use of the hyphen but I suggest a separate move request for that. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Anti-social behaviour → Antisocial behavior – English-language Wikipedia is based in the US, and US spellings are used unless the article topic if British, Australian, etc. Also, "antisocial" is generally spelled without hyphen, including at Antisocial personality disorder. All throughout Wikipedia, we use American English for "organization," "maneuver," "defense," etc. unless the article topic is British, Australian, etc. Unless we're saying that antisocial behavior is a specifically British topic (!) we should be consistent and use US English. Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• You don't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on national varities of English. There is no general preference of either variety. If the topic does not have "strong national ties", either variant may be used. In this case the existing variety should be retained. Therefore I oppose the request. As discussions on which national variety of English should be used are strongly discouraged on English-language Wikipedia, I also propose to close this request quickly. --RJFF (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see so defensive a tone, and I can only conclude you're not an American-English speaker. By your argument, it's okay to change "maneuver" to "manoeuvre" in every new article since the word has no strong national tie. I'm not sure that follows. And we're certainly being inconsistent having a hyphen in one instance and not in the other. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is massively inconsistent. It's a wiki! Everyone may edit it. There is no fix editorial team or even editor-in-chief. So, it will always be inconsistent. But at least we try to keep consistency within each article. So if an article is started in American English, others are held to continue it in American English. Same with article started in British English, of course. This is to avoid unproductive disputes and edit wars over this issue. --RJFF (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per RJFF and the RETAIN portion of WP:ENGVAR. GotR ^Talk 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and object to the rationale on two counts. First, it is absurd and offensive to suggest that US English is the default variety on Wikipedia. Second, while WP:HYPHEN records different tendencies in styling of compounds in US and non-US English, "antisocial" is the dominant form in British usage anyway. SOED has only "antisocial"; same for Collins, and others. Now, I support removal of the hyphen (as explained just now) but I oppose the change to US spelling "behavior". No reason to change, and Wikipedia does not favour one variety of English over another. See MOS:RETAIN at WP:MOS, which says in part: "In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive." ☺
  [amended and re-signed: Noetica^Tea? 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)]

"Absurd and offensive"? ... wow. Aside from the fact the implied corollary is that British English should be the default, I'm truly perplexed anyone would be offended by the suggestion that an American company would use American English unless there were a specific reason not to. Anti-social behaviour (sic), indeed. Or to put it in American terms ... overreact much?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tenebrae. Read again what you wrote; read what I wrote; think; and only then respond, if necessary. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, this has become genuinely amusing. Now I'm writing "nonsense" and responding without thinking simply because we have different points of view? God save the Queen — I've encountered many types of people on Wikipedia but never so amusingly offensive as the Brits, whose condescending attitude toward Americans would be insulting if they weren't the equivalent of a Chihuahua barking. No offense, of course: I assume since you've all felt free to name-call that you'll take that in the harmless spirit of douchery that you've so eloquently embraced. And please, let's close the discussion: You're more than demonstrated that this really is a topic of particular nationality. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

More gratuitous offensiveness, I see. Note: I am not British; I edit professionally in both US and non-US varieties of English. Yes, please do stop right now. Any more like this and it goes to WP:ANI. ♥
Noetica^Tea? 03:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. We'll talk about how the very first thing you did was call my reasonably and calmly stated request "absurd and offensive", followed by your saying that someone who disagrees with you must be spouting "nonsense" and not thinking straight. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose spelling change (but neutral on the hyphen).

The nominator's assertion that "US spellings are used unless the article topic if British, Australian, etc." is incorrect; I suggest that they consult WP:ENGVAR ("The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other."). There is no reason to change from behaviour to behavior in this article (see WP:RETAIN).

The hyphen is not used by most major English-language dictionaries, but there are some that use anti-social (e.g., Canadian Oxford).

SSR (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose UKE to USE, seems to be in direct violation of the principle, wording and spirit of WP:ENGVAR. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Utter rubbish to claim that American spelling is the default on Wikipedia. Completely against WP:ENGVAR. I'm frankly amazed that an experienced editor would be unaware of this. And before I'm attacked for being British, note that I have in the past supported retention of American English in articles which were originally written in American English. This is a style issue, not a nationalistic one, and longstanding practice is that, unless they relate to a specific country, articles should remain in the variety of English in which they were originally written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Having an opinion is everyone's right in a discussion. Calling another editor's good-faith suggestion "utter rubbish" is not. Overall I have found, in this discussion and elsewhere, that British Wikipedians are far more rude and uncivil than Americans. There is no excuse for the patronizing tone, name-calling and insulting language that Brits instigated from the very first post after mine. As I said above, you're more than welcome to keep "Anti-social behaviour" a British topic — that's been demonstrated over and over by your own words. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice that despite complaining about the comments and making ad hominem attacks on those who have made them (comments, incidentally, that were about the inaccuracies in your opening statement, not about you personally), nowhere have you addressed the points that are being made, i.e. that the Manual of Style disagrees with your opinion (to quote, "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other."). If you, as an experienced editor, make statements about Wikipedia that are clearly incorrect and which any experienced editor would surely know are incorrect (e.g. "English-language Wikipedia is based in the US, and US spellings are used unless the article topic if British, Australian, etc."), then you must expect a certain amount of disbelief that you are in fact making those statements in good faith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Blame the victim. It's my fault people are being rude and insulting. All the same points could have been made civily — it's not a crime to be be wrong or to interpret something differently. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The victim? Dear, oh dear... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a colloquial expression, and your continued piling on is just gratuitous and bullying. Three times now I've withdrawn my argument, so I find it hard to understand why you find it necessary to make fun of someone who was subjected to a patronizing tone, insults and snideness from the start. There was no justification for anyone of that — I'm sure everyone here has advocated points of view on Wikipedia that weren't adopted. That's hardly a crime or worthy of ridicule. Anyone who feels the need to do that to others is the one with issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My post was the very first after yours and I am not a Brit. --RJFF (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Though I notice you didn't deny being patronizing and defensive.

For the third time now, I say again that if people want "Anti-social behaviour", then keep "Anti-social behaviour". Has no one here ever heard of the saying, "When you win an argument, stop talking?" --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (though it seems unanimous already), no reason to changed the ENGVAR as per MOS:RETAIN. Zarcadia (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The closer may want to focus on the hyphen rather than the spelling. SSR (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per ENGVAR/RETAIN/etc. In addition I think there is at least a tiny bit of merit to saying that antisocial behavio(u)r has a UK lean to it... we don't have ASBO's in America, so far as I know. And I kind of like how the two articles are similarly styled. -Kai445 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose dropping the "u" for the reasons stated above concerning Wikipedia policy, but Support dropping the hyphen as I think the more common spelling in both British and American English omits the hyphen. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alcohol consumption doesn't directly cause anti-social behavior

Just wanted to make a clarification based on a couple of sources I found online about drunkenness and anti social behavior:

http://www.sirc.org/publik/drinking4.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317

On Sirc.org: "While these physiological and psychological correlates of alcohol consumption are not disputed, the effect of alcohol on affective or emotional processes is far more variable and complex, and results of experiments have proved inconclusive and unreliable. Effects on emotional states and specific forms of behaviour are clearly extremely hard to demonstrate, as to prove that alcohol produces, by way of action on the CNS, psychological changes which lead to particular behaviours, one must control for the influence of social and cultural factors and individual expectations regarding the effects of alcohol."

On BBC.co.uk: "In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules...

The effects of alcohol on behaviour are determined by cultural rules and norms, not by the chemical actions of ethanol."

It is clear from these sources that the social effects of drunkenness are more cultural than they are physiological. Alcohol is pointed as also having a placebo effect, but as human beings, we still cognitively decide what we do socially when we are drunk.RustyIvory99 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol consumption is anti-social behavior. There is infact a difference between sociopath and anti-sociopath. A sociopath is someone whom wants attention, usually by non-harmless means. Maybe societal acceptance, maybe a protest of sorts. Usually non-intentional or harmless. An anti-sociopath is someone whom wants attention in order to harm or defame the public ie Charles Manson is an anti-sociopath. An anti-sociopath usually seeks attention to harm or defame someone. Another example of a anti-sociopath are the Colombine high school shooters. Killing people is infact anti-social behavior. Its not social behavior. Many serial killers are anti-sociopaths on their way to becoming psychopaths if not already. I would actually think killing people is a psychotic act in most regards. Anti-social behavior is harmless yet an anti-sociopath is dangerous. I would think the anti-sociopath has already committed an act or is in the process of committing an act through violence. In any means necessary, an anti-sociopath will get their point across. Its society's task to stop them from doing so. Drugs, obsession, sex and societal norms can at times lead to anti-socialism. It can harm people, and words can affect people. A sociopath does not want to be alone, an anti-sociopath seeks attention to be alone or wants infact to be alone. At times though, one can be anti-social for the sake of being anti-social. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We must ensure we refer back to established definition of "antisocial", which would be from references, and avoid what could be opinion. A dictionary, as reference for the word in English helps here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/antisocial?s=t We find the definition that is a combining of anti- and social, and thus an antonym of "social" or "pro-social". We also find the medical definition of the word, for psychiatry and DSM.

The act of drinking alcohol or sitting at home watching TV is not, by itself, "antisocial". it's just an action doing by one's self. As in the example in definition #1, being "shy", avoiding people from anxiety, is not an act directly against others. "anti-" being a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,”.

Thus, alcohol consumption, or sugar consumption for that matter, is not antisocial and ought not be referenced in this encyclopedic article. Unless a specific scientific reference can be found to suggest an updating of the dictionary and this encyclopedia. Please find specific references of the link between alcohol behavior and antisocial to continue any Talk on inclusion of alcohol in this article. Eturk001 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Age-innapropriate?

This term age-innapropriate is mentioned with scare quotes in the opening sentence of the article and seems irrelevant and weird. Most anti-social behaviors have nothing to do with age-appropriateness. Why is that in there, especially right at the start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.73.30 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has several problems. 1. age-appropriateness should be removed unless there is specific citation that makes it directly relevant to antisocial behaviors. Probably remove entire first sentence of lede as it doesn't seem to describe what specifically the subject is (the behavior) for the reader. 2. As discussed back in 2013 on the talk page, the title should probably be changes to "antisocial behavior". (hyphen removed. American spelling) as it's opposite is "prosocial behavior": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosocial_behavior & is a lesser relation to the specific disorder (also American English spelling) 3. This topic article should be written more relatively to both prosocial BEHAVIOR & the DSM "disorder" article to help the reader differentiate as well as encourage them to read on. Eturk001 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Questioning Development

In the development section on the main article, the development talked mainly about social media's influence on antisocial behavior however, it only talks about the correlations between factors. Correlation does not show true statistical relationships between things. Anything can be made into a correlation. For example, if you go on sites such as http://tylervigen.com/ and there will be random variables in which you can make your own correlations, you give the random variables and the site will produce a graph and statistics. Correlations aren't very unreliable, especially when talking about something with high importance. Another thing is that is doesn't mention any key findings from infancy to adulthood. It also does not mention the non-aggressive behaviors. If there is any correlation to talk about, talk about the correlation between family problems, environmental effects, etc. If there is any disagreements or if there is anyway I can make a contribution to this article in this area, please let me know. Thank you! --LamearD (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Age inappropriate

Not sure it has to be "age inappropriate", which suggests behaviour carried out in front of children which is inappropriate for them - anti-social behaviour can be committed against adults: indeed, is often used by adults to control the behaviour of teenage children. In addition, I don't think it even has to be contrary to prevailing norms: the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in the UK defines anti-social behaviour as acting in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to anyone not of your own household: this could be absolutely anything. Anything could cause someone else harassment, alarm or distress whether it was contrary to prevailing norms or not: emotion, i.e. distress, can be irrational and somewhat random, people can get upset over almost anything or what may appear to others to be nothing, but obviously isn't for that person, and it does not require prevailing norms to be breached for any individual to be caused distress. aspaa (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-social behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018071111/http://www.breckland.gov.uk/content/anti-social-behaviour-1 to http://www.breckland.gov.uk/content/anti-social-behaviour-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-social behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211144219/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Anti-social is frequently used, incorrectly, to mean either "nonsocial" or "unsociable". The words are not synonyms.[8]

The cited reference does not state that it is incorrect to to use anti-social to describe asocial behaviour. Quite the opposite, it describes an asocial behaviour and states that such behaviour may be described as asocial or anti-social, and that anti-social is "more often" (but not always) used to describe more extreme behaviour.

It seems like it would be more correct to say that the term "asocial" can only be used to describe "unsocialable" behaviour but that anti-social is an umbrella term covering both. In other words anti-social can be, but usually isn't, a synonym for asocial. This also agrees with every online dictionary reference I've consulted.

Examples:

• http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-social
  
• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/antisocial
  
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial
  
• https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antisocial
  
• https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anti-social
  

None of those state that using anti-social as a synonym for asocial is incorrect, instead they explicitly list it as a synonym. Theonefinn (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Why the hyphen?

I've always believed antisocial was unhyphenated. Indeed, the sources I've checked—e.g. Merriam-Webster—indicate that. Is this a UK or other regional English spelling? And no, I'm not trying to be antisocial by asking. :?) – AndyFielding (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti social activity

Its a lot of dangerious distrub social harmony people feels insecure when they have to suffer from these activitied. 103.121.172.15 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Dissociality" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dissociality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Dissociality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Assholism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Assholism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § Assholism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)