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

People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 386 posts

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#261

Post by josephcsible »

reanimus wrote: post #254
josephcsible wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people with autism are more likely than the general population to have ADHD, but people with ADHD are not more likely than the general population to have autism I'm pretty sure that's not mathematically possible. If W people have both, X people have only autism, Y people have only ADHD, and Z people have neither, can you provide values for W, X, Y, and Z that would make that claim true?

W (9), X (1), Y (9), Z (1) General chance of being in either group: 50% (10 people with autism, 10 with ADHD, 20 total). Chance of having autism if you have ADHD: 50% (9 with autism, 9 without, 10 total). Chance of having ADHD if you have autism: 90% (9 with ADHD, 9 without, 10 total).

> General chance of being in either group: 50% (10 people with autism, 10 with ADHD, 20 total).

This is wrong. With your numbers ("W (9), X (1), Y (9), Z (1)"), 18 people would have ADHD, not 10.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#262

Post by otteromkram »

xwolfi wrote: post #248
InSteady wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading the statistics in the study correctly [0], most of these 80 incidents (70%) were pulled from CCTV footage at a "night time drinking setting." Groups of 18 people on average standing around bars, presumably outside. In 20% of cases someone de-escalated, 5% of the time a bystander joined in to escalate the violent encounter, and 4% it was a mix of escalation/de-escalation. Presumably the rest of the time…

Yeah but we re talking about the real world. If we re honest, when do most conflicts arise with bystanders ready? When people are drunk at night... (or similarly mentally impaired maybe? why do people have open conflicts in the streets in the first place should be part of the theory). So you might say that if the theory didnt take alcohol, nights and all your factors into account, then it was as useful as considering…

Bystander effect is more than just street fights at 1am.

When I saw the title of this piece, my first thought was an emergency situation (eg - automobile accident, building on fire).

Did the study even determine whether bystanders were independent individuals or had a prior relationship to the belligerents? If the second one then it feels like the study is invalidated.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#263

Post by vasco »

lmm wrote: post #245
vasco wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people live in a scary world. I would think it's quite stupid to be worried about this when the worst that could happen is missing a flight, which would not happen anyway if you pay attention to your surroundings.

That's not the worst that can happen, not by a long way. You have very few rights in an airport, in practice if not in theory.

Have you looked up crime rates in airports or what gives you this idea that it's a dangerous place? Unless you're digging up dirt on Putin and flying through Russia or some outlier situation like this, nothing is going to happen.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#264

Post by makeitdouble »

vasco wrote: post #241
makeitdouble wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a security guard had to let them into the right queue. So, just looking at the final result they ended up in the right place ? Assuming the security guard made that adjustment because they were so many of them, the strategy seems to be paying off in that specific case.

Someone like the person you replied to would consider a big failure and inefficient to be told by security where to go when there are signs. I'd be thinking about it for a while after too and it'd never happen again in an airport because I'd be even more aware next time to prevent it.

I probably sit in the middle, where I see the value of good signs (and good design in general) to properly guide the users so they don't have to rely on heuristics and "blind" fallbacks. In particular for airports where dealing with huge influx of users at peak time is critical.

On the other hand, for many people, having to talk to a security guard and move to the lane on the other side is a non-event, and they might have tried to talk to the guard even if there was absolutely no need for it, if they felt it wouldn't be an issue for the guard (not too busy, looks bored etc.). Efficiency could be super low on their priority list, if it wasn't they'd be paying a lot more attention to the signage in the first place.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#265

Post by jjav »

permo-w wrote: post #154
wkat4242 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you mean. I remember one time I got off the plane in Italy and I was walking with my girlfriend to customs. At one point we branched off from all the other passengers and she was like "hey we're going the wrong way, everyone is heading there". And I said nope this is the EU passengers exit, look at the sign. She couldn't believe it was right because the plane was full of others from our EU country. All th…

this effect seems to be especially true in airports. they seem to particularly inspire dumb herd behaviour. perhaps there's an increase in perceived danger leading to a stronger desire for safety in numbers? another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on…

> why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people?

Wonder if you have flown in recent years?

Flights are now set up so that the last several groups who board have zero space for carryone luggage. So if you board after all the space is gone you are in for a very bad time. For a while it started to become an unspoken rule, and now they even announce it on the loudspeaker: if you are in group N or above (N depends on airline) you won't have any space left.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#266

Post by slim »

vasco wrote: post #241
makeitdouble wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a security guard had to let them into the right queue. So, just looking at the final result they ended up in the right place ? Assuming the security guard made that adjustment because they were so many of them, the strategy seems to be paying off in that specific case.

Someone like the person you replied to would consider a big failure and inefficient to be told by security where to go when there are signs. I'd be thinking about it for a while after too and it'd never happen again in an airport because I'd be even more aware next time to prevent it.

I think the point of GP is "following the herd" is also a strategy that works 90% of the time (I would argue 99% of the time if there is no malicious intent to mislead involved). It's not by chance that this behaviour has been selected by nature. It is simple. It works in a lot of cases including cases where there are no signs or where you can't read the signs. And it makes for a great fallback strategy when you have a better strategy for the specific case.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#267

Post by jjav »

nrclark wrote: post #255
xwdv wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason becomes apparent when you take a carry on bag and find yourself desperately searching for somewhere to put it in an overhead bin, but there is none. You boarded too late and everyone ahead of you stole your allotted space. NOW you have to check in your carry on. And waste time waiting for your bag at the baggage claim. If it even makes it. Your bag has much higher chance of being lost if checked in late.

Actually the opposite is true. When you gate-check your bags, they are handled carefully and go directly into the plane. Sometimes even into a corner of the passenger area. Parents routinely gate-check strollers, and it’s rare to see one get lost. Also, gate-checked luggage is given to you at the gate when you land. So no baggage claim.

> When you gate-check your bags, they are handled carefully

Spend some time at the window seats at the gate looking at earlier flights and how gate-checked luggage is handled.

It gets thrown down this chute that drops hard some 20ft to the ground. It also gets very carelessly thrown in there, so a bunch of the bags miss the chute and just drop straight down to the concrete. If you had anything other than clothes in there, ouch! You'll get back a back full of destroyed fragments.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#268

Post by vasco »

slim wrote: post #266
vasco wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone like the person you replied to would consider a big failure and inefficient to be told by security where to go when there are signs. I'd be thinking about it for a while after too and it'd never happen again in an airport because I'd be even more aware next time to prevent it.

I think the point of GP is "following the herd" is also a strategy that works 90% of the time (I would argue 99% of the time if there is no malicious intent to mislead involved). It's not by chance that this behaviour has been selected by nature. It is simple. It works in a lot of cases including cases where there are no signs or where you can't read the signs. And it makes for a great fallback strategy when you have…

And what I was sharing is that someone like me wouldn't consider that outcome as "works". Someone that follows the herd in this scenario is exactly the type of person that would say "what do you mean, it worked anyway?".

In my mind if I'm an adult person in an airport and I missed obvious signs and just went with everyone I'd be genuinely thinking about this for days and softly beat myself up, look up the airport floorplan and for years after in every airport I would think about this.

This is not a hypothetical for me because it has happened and I'm still triggered about it to the point that's years later and I'm here typing about it.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#269

Post by jjav »

fsckboy wrote: post #218
xwdv wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason becomes apparent when you take a carry on bag and find yourself desperately searching for somewhere to put it in an overhead bin, but there is none. You boarded too late and everyone ahead of you stole your allotted space. NOW you have to check in your carry on. And waste time waiting for your bag at the baggage claim. If it even makes it. Your bag has much higher chance of being lost if checked in late.

> The reason becomes apparent when you take a carry on bag your unreason will become apparent when you check that bag and stroll completely unencumbered through the vast distances twixt curb and plane (x2 departure and arrival) baggage claim really doesn't take that long, and you can come up with something zen to do for 5 or 10 minutes, make a phone call or two, talk to family or friends. Life is better when you stop…

> baggage claim really doesn't take that long

Sure. Just recently picked up my partner from SFO on a late night arrival. It tooke THREE HOURS for the bags to start arriving on the belt. Who knows why. Zero information given to the hundreds of angry people standing there. A very miserable time.

Yes, that's not typical, but it happens. If you carry your bags, it can't possibly ever happen.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#270

Post by renewiltord »

nathan_compton wrote: post #116

I have mild autism (not entirely politically correct to describe it that way) without intellectual impairments and I frankly see normal people as disabled.

God help us. Is it inevitable for every technology forum to eventually descend into proclamations of intellectual superiority?
Post reply on HN