Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#141

Post by jdavis703 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

emsy wrote: post #136

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.

You can actually be evicted for calling 911 too often – even if those calls are legitimate [0].

0: https://thinkprogress.org/chronic-nuisance-laws-ordinances-e...

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#142

Post by michaelt » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

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…

Yes, to be clear I'm not saying people should wait until they see smoke before they leave.

What I was trying to communicate is "The lack of panic I have observed reflects situations where there was no visible danger, I strongly suspect people would behave differently if danger was visible"

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#143

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

diydsp wrote: post #134

bkor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#144

Post by neom » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #139

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.

Interesting thought, I like to think about how there is an inherent juxtaposition of selfishness and selflessness required in evolution itself, and the manifestation of that "perfect conflict" from a non-thinking (un-intelligent) evolving line to a (intelligent )thinking yet still driven by evolution, line. Not sure if that makes any sense. :)

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#145

Post by Wohlf » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #139

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.

Every generation thinks they invented casual sex, every generation thinks the new generation is ruining the world. This has been true as long as history has been recorded.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#146

Post by Chris_Chambers » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

emsy wrote: post #136

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.

You appear to be assuming that everyone is as socially awkward as you are.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#147

Post by BeetleB » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #8

It's quite shocking to me how many social science and social psychology experiments have been debunked in recent years. It's as if the whole field is filled with false research. They should do what psychology has done and start a massive replication effort of most cited results. [0] That should bring back some credibility back to the field. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-rep...

To be frank, this study likely did not debunk anything.

Even 30 years ago, psychologists had outlined the criteria by which the bystander effect does not occur. A well known criterion (seen in many comments on HN) is to direct your plea for help to a single individual amongst the bystanders ("You! Call 911!" as opposed to "Someone call 911!"). Another aspect that's been known for over 30 years is that if someone in the crowd feels (s)he is an outsider, that person is a lot more likely to intervene.

Did they account for these in the study? How will they determine if a particular person thought of himself as an outsider? If they did not account for these, then the article is attacking a strawman.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#148

Post by groestl » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:12 PM UTC

techdmn wrote: post #135

technothrasher wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, but I will not ask you should somebody else's life be in danger. Touching, being a personal thing, is intended to take you out of your headspace and place you in the physical world (source: worked as an EMT in the past).

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#149

Post by MS90 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:12 PM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #85

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…

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.

I remember this from Boy Scouts. We were taught to pick someone, point straight at them and say "YOU, call 911"

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#150

Post by Chris_Chambers » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #139

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.

Uh, no one in America in 1964 thought people didn’t care about each other. Everyone was in a traditional family in the high trust society in the 50s, and then in the 60s it immediately transitioned into everyone having sex with each other. No one in the 60s would have said Americans didn’t care about each other. No one. People say it now because it’s true. Where there used to be high trust and cohesion between similarly minded people of the same culture, there’s now just the static noise of multiculturalism and incompatible groups of people who hate each other. You’re actually a full blown retard if you don’t understand this by now, it’s been fleshed out in ridiculous detail within easily accessed sources for a long time. I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to a smoothbrain, I can tell there’s no way you’ll ever grasp this.