"mean behavior" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it to describe someone's attitude or actions that are unkind, hostile, or unpleasant. For example, "I was appalled by my coworker's mean behavior towards me."
Yes, some conflict is a normal part of growing up, and plenty of friendly, responsible children dabble in mean behavior.
Instead, the authors argue that when it comes to mean behavior, the role of individual traits is "overstated," and much of it comes down to concern about status.
But, he added, evolution couldn't explain why humans would judge nice behavior "good" and mean behavior "bad" — why we intuitively apprehend "the moral law" and feel guilty when we've broken it.
Nathan Nahm wants to push me into the same territory when he says that if by "rational" I mean behavior "that maximizes what the actor intends to accomplish" in the way of policy changes, then my "analysis is certainly true but trivial". If, however, I mean that such "behavior should also be treated as ethically acceptable," then my "analysis is not valid".
Again, BU20 showed a mean behavior.
Although significant radial and longitudinal temperature gradients exist, one-dimensional (radially-lumped) simulations predict mean behavior quite well.
The first part explains the mean behavior of the function we interpolate and the second part is a stochastic function with known mean and variance.
When mean behaviors correlate among individuals, they form behavioral syndromes.
Bullying and other mean behaviors will decrease only when we model, teach and expect the opposite.
By considering entire distributions, this approach generalizes traditional approaches to validation that focus only on the mean behaviors of predictions and observations.
This means behavior change, in the ways we eat, recycle, commute, take holidays, raise our children, buy and build houses, work, consume - every aspect of our lives, in fact.
