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

Mendon, Missouri

seandietrich.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#191

Post by dangrossman »

mlyle wrote: post #187
dangrossman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no bystander effect. It was a theory invented and spread by the NYPD to take the spotlight off the fact that they didn't respond to calls reporting a murder in public. > Philpot et al. (2019) examined over 200 sets of real-life surveillance video recordings [across 3 countries]...they found that intervention was the norm, and in over 90% of conflicts one or more bystanders intervened to provide help. https:/…

Citing wikipedia, and cherrypicking one of the few pieces of research that partially argues against the effect in the massive article, is dubious. The study you cited, indeed, doesn't deny the bystander effect that each person becomes less likely to help as more people are present. It just argues that in the most dangerous situations, the odds of someone intervening goes up slightly as the number of people increase.…

I cited wikipedia as that's where I learned that the "bystander effect" was a PR campaign invented by the NYPD in 1964, an interesting fact I thought to share. It states this in the first paragraph, then cites the study I chose to quote in both the next paragraph, as well as again later in the entry. I didn't cherry pick it, it's the main thrust of the page, and the largest study of its kind. In 219 observed disputes across 3 countries, the only times no bystander intervened were when couples were arguing amongst themselves, or when a thief was the one being beaten up.

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#192

Post by fritztastic »

There is a book about how people come together during times of disaster, called A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit. One of the distinct things I got from it is how the media often focuses on the gruesome details rather than how people more often than not help one another out. It is an eye-opening read that gave me a lot of hope and inspiration.

From the Publisher:

"The most startling thing about disasters, according to award-winning author Rebecca Solnit, is not merely that so many people rise to the occasion, but that they do so with joy. That joy reveals an ordinarily unmet yearning for community, purposefulness, and meaningful work that disaster often provides. A Paradise Built in Hell is an investigation of the moments of altruism, resourcefulness, and generosity that arise amid disaster’s grief and disruption and considers their implications for everyday life. It points to a new vision of what society could become-one that is less authoritarian and fearful, more collaborative and local."

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/301070/a-paradise-b...>

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#193

Post by fritztastic »

marssaxman wrote: post #102

There is an excellent book on this theme, which I have been recommending liberally for several years: "A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster". https://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Com...

That was the first thing on my mind, also. I found that book during a really difficult time in my life and it really helped me find an optimist hopeful perspective when everything seemed hopeless- it inspired me deeply.

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#194

Post by mlyle »

dangrossman wrote: post #191
mlyle wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing wikipedia, and cherrypicking one of the few pieces of research that partially argues against the effect in the massive article, is dubious. The study you cited, indeed, doesn't deny the bystander effect that each person becomes less likely to help as more people are present. It just argues that in the most dangerous situations, the odds of someone intervening goes up slightly as the number of people increase.…

I cited wikipedia as that's where I learned that the "bystander effect" was a PR campaign invented by the NYPD in 1964, an interesting fact I thought to share. It states this in the first paragraph, then cites the study I chose to quote in both the next paragraph, as well as again later in the entry. I didn't cherry pick it, it's the main thrust of the page, and the largest study of its kind. In 219 observed disputes…

It's hardly the main thrust of the page.

I linked the study above. Note that the individual probability of intervention falls as the number of people goes up (and the study you cited mentions this).

In some situations, it looks like the total probability of any intervention goes up as the number of people increases. In other situations, it looks like it goes down. The paper cited to produce that couple of sentences on Wikipedia makes the distinction quite clear and does not dispute the individual probability of intervention falls: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/134891/1/Would_I_be_He...

Note that it quite clearly says that it does not refute the bystander effect: ". It is important that by examining intervention on the situational rather than the individual level, our research does not evaluate whether bystanders are less likely to provide help when in the presence of other bystanders compared with when they are alone (i.e., the bystander effect). "

I agree and don't dispute the Kitty Genovese thing was bullshit, but the bystander effect-- a reduced probability for individuals to respond when more people are around-- is one of the most replicated findings in behavioral psychology.

As to the probability of someone intervening-- it looks like the odds are best when a small number of people are around vs. property crime, and best when a large number of people are around vs. dangerous/emergency situations. Also, the efficacy of the latter intervention, assessed by victims, seems to fall as the number of surrounding people increase.

This is all well discussed in the wikipedia article and in the text of the particular study you're relying upon.

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#195

Post by moistly »

mlyle wrote: post #115
kortilla wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, Why would you think this when there is little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights).

I don't agree that the root is the income/wealth gap, but it certainly is playing a big role in the divide. > little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... is striking-- and when you look into the sub-demographics of the lowest and highest band it gets more interesting still-- e.g. that 27% in the lowest income band is shock…

What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living.

You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, higher prices, less selection, lower pay, greater energy use, potentially far fewer cultural/educational/social opportunities.

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#196

Post by jlkuester7 »

townied wrote: post #166
mlyle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I think people are good overall. I think the biggest reason people in small towns may be a bit quicker to help is that people in cities are a little conditioned by the bystander effect to assume that people around them, or the authorities, are better equipped to help. But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful.

Having gone small town to “the city,” my interactions with other humans are by and large a net negative to the point that it’s almost better for one’s sanity to not involve outside of whatever communities you have therein. Having spent a decade now here, it feels a bit like when you’re getting a cavity ground out at the dentist and they finally hit the nerve. Spending time away, “back home” or in some other tight-kni…

I am with you here! There are lots of things I enjoy about living in the city, but ultimately I would also rate it as a net negative for my quality of life.

After almost 10 years of it, my family is finally taking the plunge and we are getting out. (Hooray for remote work and StarLink!)

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#197

Post by themitigating »

mlyle wrote: post #73
exar0815 wrote: post #45

I have witnessed something quite similar. During the flash-floods in 2021 in Germany, locals in the Ahr region absolutely rose to the occasion. Farmers were evacuating people in head-high water with their tractors during the night, local restaurants were already providing hot food and water the next morning wherever they could reach, pharmacies were loading whatever they had available on ATVs to somehow get much-need…

Yes. I think people are good overall. I think the biggest reason people in small towns may be a bit quicker to help is that people in cities are a little conditioned by the bystander effect to assume that people around them, or the authorities, are better equipped to help. But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful.

How do you know people in smaller towns are quicker to help?

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#198

Post by thematrixturtle »

fritztastic wrote: post #192

There is a book about how people come together during times of disaster, called A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit. One of the distinct things I got from it is how the media often focuses on the gruesome details rather than how people more often than not help one another out. It is an eye-opening read that gave me a lot of hope and inspiration. From the Publisher: "The most startling thing about disasters, ac…

There's a related phenomenon called "elite panic", where the media focuses/outright manufactures fear about poor people looting, rioting etc whenever there's a natural disaster, and this leads to idiocy like police standing around guarding undamaged rich people's houses instead of even trying to save the actual victims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_panic

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#199

Post by mlyle »

themitigating wrote: post #197
mlyle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I think people are good overall. I think the biggest reason people in small towns may be a bit quicker to help is that people in cities are a little conditioned by the bystander effect to assume that people around them, or the authorities, are better equipped to help. But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful.

How do you know people in smaller towns are quicker to help?

I don't know it, I say "may be" quicker to help.

It does seem likely, given what we know about bystander effect. In cities, we're conditioned to expect someone else will take care of whatever's wrong, and this is less true in rural environs.

Re: Mendon, Missouri

#200

Post by mlyle »

moistly wrote: post #195
mlyle wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that the root is the income/wealth gap, but it certainly is playing a big role in the divide. > little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... is striking-- and when you look into the sub-demographics of the lowest and highest band it gets more interesting still-- e.g. that 27% in the lowest income band is shock…

What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living. You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, hi…

I don't understand how what you said here relates to what I said. I didn't say that lower income people are more rural; I said that if you look at the left leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very urban, and the right leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very rural.
Post reply on HN