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

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#161

Post by bradknowles »

Wohlf wrote: post #145
kartan wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

/insert lyrics from "We Didn't Start the Fire"

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#162

Post by atoav »

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:/…

There is a very interesting small read from Georg Simmel written in 1903 called “The Metropolis and Mental Life” in which the Berlin based Simmel tries to describe how the new mega-cities influence the mind of it’s inhabitants. Even now, more than a century later his text still works.

However only up to a degree — many people like to take some sort of preceived trend (”people are getting more emotionally cold”) and extrapolate it into the future. This extrapolation becomes part of their Weltbild and because we like it when our anecdotes line up with our Weltbild, we start to leave out facts that don’t.

Does it mean that Simmel’s general idea that cities affect people is wrong? Probably not. It is just not as big of a thing as many make themselves belive it is.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#163

Post by bradknowles »

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…

At a previous employer, I went through the "Emergency Responder" training, which meant that I also kept a reflective orange vest at my desk, with an appropriate label on the back.

We had fire drills where the list of people who knew about the drill-to-come was intentionally kept to a tiny handful of people, usually just one person per floor. When the alarm went off, it was up to us to go into Fire Marshal mode and direct people to leave through the stairs, stay to the right because the fire department personnel will be coming up the inside, etc....

That process was actually surprisingly effective. I was a good choice because I can be a very loud person, when I want. I have maxxed out my SPL meter at 127dBA, and I've checked into what it would take to make an official go at getting the worlds record for "loudest person".

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#164

Post by atoav »

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.

It is curious. I am quite young still, but I can already observe myself thinking: “These youngsters shouldn’t do this — it is way to dangerous”

And then I realize, the things I did when I was young were way, way wilder than the things I complain about. And then I shut up, let them be and try to be there and speak the sage words when they need them and no second before.

I am not sure who treats the next generation worse:

- the kids who went through the real shit

- the kids who had a wild youth

- the kids who never did anything out of fear

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#165

Post by techdmn »

technothrasher wrote: post #154
techdmn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Touching people is a pretty personal thing Yep, the increased sense of intimacy that can make somebody feel more obligated to you can also make somebody feel uncomfortable and pressured. It's a technique that can definitely backfire. Using it with strangers won't necessarily give you the result you thought it would. However, I suspect in a "call 911" type of situation the other person is already uncomfortable and it'…

Sure, in an emergency situation making someone uncomfortable is a pretty minor concern. I commented specifically because you said "works in most situations, not just a traumatic one". I think it's worth considering that adopting this strategy for non-emergency situations could well create trauma for the person being touched.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#166

Post by goto11 »

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 are playing into the false story by suggesting that it is true that a number of witnesses was aware of the violence but didn't call the police.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#167

Post by aravindgp »

Its absolutely amazing finding....it teaches to trust more and be little more secure someone out there will take care of me if in trouble. That kind of gives so much sense of hope and debunk that "fear stranger" or "no one is gonna help you" myth which pertuated for decades.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#168

Post by ralfd »

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…

Weekly? Isn't that a bit overkill?
Post reply on HN