Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#131

Post by komali2 »

michaelt wrote: post #115
pure-awesome wrote: post #79

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill: It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate. I real…

when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments [...] After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. That's normal and expected; in most large buildings in my country, there is a weekly fire alarm test, so of course no-one sprints for the door during the first 60 seconds of hearing the siren. It's not like there's visible smoke or flames. In a way it's even des…

> It's not like there's visible smoke or flames.

I get your desire for lack of panic, but the lollygagging around fire alarms terrifies me. If you wait around to see smoke, you are now dramatically more likely to need rescue, or just die.

Remember how obnoxious it is when campfire smoke blows in your direction, and how quickly you scramble to get out of the way. How you still have to blink for a couple seconds to clear your vision and the pain.

Structure fires are 100x that. The smoke has nowhere to go and collects so, so fast. And it's disgustingly choking compared to a simple wood fire cause of all the plastic and oil smoke involved. It'll fill a room top-down in under a minute, and if it hits you you will be as incapacitated as if you had been hit by pepper spray, with no recourse because it's all around you. Meanwhile even if you do escape every breath is ticking years off your life...

Tldr if you hear a fire alarm, stand up and leave without a moment's hesitation. No need to run, just get out quick. Please!!

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#132

Post by Tharkun »

scottishfiction wrote: post #113
GordonS wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> several cases of guys beating on their wives in public, two drunken attempted robberies, a variety of (literal) gay bashing, random subway violence, and oodles of shit I can't recall. The latest was two weeks ago: a hit and run with a teen victim with a very nasty headwound. Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so violent!

And you still have no idea. These are anecdotes collected over a long period from which you can infer nothing.

Indeed. I certainly did not mean to imply that Belgium is particularly violent. These anecdotes span about two decades. Having spent most of that time living in dense population centres, usually in the poorer parts of town, has certainly added some bias to my sample.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#133

Post by Tharkun »

CalRobert wrote: post #99
Tharkun wrote: post #50

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience. Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand. When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the…

It's laudable to stop violence, but "lainly tell them "give me a hand". That gets the ball rolling." is pretty tough. People have lots of reasons to not get involved in physical altercations and plenty of them are valid, so you're putting a pretty big burden on them.

Sure. But standing around, mouth agape, while a barkeep is getting harrassed by a drunk angrily swiging a bottle at their face is placing a pretty big burden on everyone else. "See something, say something" is the least anyone can do.

Of course, don't put yourself at risk unless you have to. But if there's a chance you can do some good, you should at least try.

As a victim of assault, getting physically injured sucks, but seeing a bunch of people around you refusing to help, that's pretty damaging to your view on humanity. Insult to injury, I guess you could say.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#134

Post by diydsp »

bkor wrote: post #102
ohazi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!" Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

Interestingly the standard procedure in The Netherlands for medical emergencies (the ones where you find someone on the ground) changed to actually calling yourself over asking a random bystander. Aside from calling you should also put the phone on handsfree and lay it next to the person (on the ground). This as 112 (911) asks loads of questions. Age of the person, conscious yes/no, what does the skin look like, feel…

I find this approach of taking individual responsibility much better than handing over authority to a "person in a uniform" as the GP stated. Sure it's easier to blindly trust the "official" one, but it sets up a disempowering dynamic where the group is clueless and only looking for a charismatic leader to point them in the right direction. For something cut as clearly as a fire alarm, there is no reason why everyone over 10 years old can not respond properly as single unit.

> Instead of us staring at each other trying to decide whether the group considers it serious enough to go along with, just having that person singled out as the "official" one was enough to get the momentum going.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#135

Post by techdmn »

technothrasher wrote: post #127
groestl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if possible, touch that person while telling them to call 911 - helps them get moving if they are petrified.

Touching somebody while asking them to do something for you works in most situations, not just a traumatic one. It creates a heightened level of intimacy, which makes the other person feel more obligated to help.

This sets off pretty big alarm bells for me. Touching people is a pretty personal thing, and doing it with ulterior motives seems wrong. P.S. Don't touch me.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#136

Post by emsy »

goto11 wrote: post #28

The infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was reported the medias as 38 witnesses in an apartment block saw or heard the murder but none did anything to save her, not even call the police. In 2007 someone digged into the story and discovered that this was wildly exaggerated. Only a few witnesses has seen the violence and they did in fact call the police - the police just didn't respond in a timely manner. https:/…

Even if it were true, there's a more charitable and in my opinion more plausible explanation: people are afraid to bother the emergency line with redundant calls. These days it's probably more plausible than ever, because we hear of prank calls to the emergency line and don't want to occupy the emergency line more than necessary.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#137

Post by watwut »

squirrel wrote: post #87

A relevant, classic bystander-effect experiment (Darley and Latane 1968) put several participants, all subjects of the experiment, in a waiting room. Smoke began to come into the room through a vent. In most groups, no one acted for a very long time, even after the smoke led to breathing problems for participants. By contrast, when only one person was in the room, not a group, that person would almost always leave th…

Could it be that in 1968 you felt social pressure to keep cool and calm and unafraid? In that experiment, the presence of "confederates", people who cooperated with experimenters made everyone much more passive.

In 2019 you feel social pressure to act to look responsible and less pressure to look unafraid, so we think differently.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#138

Post by vonmoltke »

komali2 wrote: post #131
michaelt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments [...] After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. That's normal and expected; in most large buildings in my country, there is a weekly fire alarm test, so of course no-one sprints for the door during the first 60 seconds of hearing the siren. It's not like there's visible smoke or flames. In a way it's even des…

> It's not like there's visible smoke or flames. I get your desire for lack of panic, but the lollygagging around fire alarms terrifies me. If you wait around to see smoke, you are now dramatically more likely to need rescue, or just die. Remember how obnoxious it is when campfire smoke blows in your direction, and how quickly you scramble to get out of the way. How you still have to blink for a couple seconds to cle…

> Tldr if you hear a fire alarm, stand up and leave without a moment's hesitation. No need to run, just get out quick. Please!!

That is specifically counter to the FDNY's guidance on alarms in high rise buildings. You get up, congregate at a stairwell, and wait for instructions from the fire safety director. Simply leaving the building without knowing the nature or location of the emergency is dangerous, and staying where you are may actually be the safest course of action.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#139

Post by kartan »

goto11 wrote: post #28

The infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was reported the medias as 38 witnesses in an apartment block saw or heard the murder but none did anything to save her, not even call the police. In 2007 someone digged into the story and discovered that this was wildly exaggerated. Only a few witnesses has seen the violence and they did in fact call the police - the police just didn't respond in a timely manner. https:/…

> people "these days" don't care about each other, society is falling apart etc.

Interesting point.It was 1964. The same people that complain about the current generation.

I think that it's great that this myth of debunked. People wants to be good. Give people education and means and they will run a society smoothly.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#140

Post by vonmoltke »

bkor wrote: post #101
pure-awesome wrote: post #79

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill: It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside. On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate. I real…

> just give a random person a "uniform" (a whistle, a badge, a hat, or a vest, anything simple like that works) and tell them that when the alarm goes off, they are responsible for telling people to leave. What an absolutely strange procedure! This as a fire marshal is not responsible for getting people out. People themselves are responsible to act. The fire marshal is a backup ! Here people (big building, multiple c…

> Here people (big building, multiple companies, etc) are told when they get hired that it's their responsibility to evacuate when the (standardized across Europe) evacuation sound goes off.

So it's up to everyone individually to determine if leaving the building is actually safe, and to figure out which emergency exits are safe to use?

Post reply on HN