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

361–370 of 386 posts

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

#361

Post by mjburgess »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #356
mjburgess wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that's a reply to me, you havent understood my point. I am well aware of such situations. The question is whether a particular person, in a particular park, on a particular day, with a particular dog is causing that situation. It is an absurd level of paranoia to suppose they are. Dogs kill people. People kill people. Everything is harmful to someone at somepoint. The question is whether we should go aro…

One wonders if you also rail at the authoritarian nature of stoplights. At that on one particular 4-way with that one particular car with that one particular driver, they successfully ran a red light without causing an accident, therefore, we should all just ignore stop lights because they're an authoritarian construct designed to cow us into submission. Or perhaps it's those authoritarian posters telling young peopl…

Sure, conventions that create shelling points to enable coordination on roads are the same as preventing dogs from running around in parks -- the things dogs want to do by nature, in the nature-based parts of cities.

Perhaps it's my inclination against speciesism, and my seeing people much closer to dogs than not -- but I think the regulation of the behaviour of animals, against their natures, is a moral matter.

A convention around how to drive isnt.

As far as STDs go, again: no idiotic blanket rules, indeed. Morality occurs in the negotiation between people in particular circumstances.

Sometimes not wearing a condom is exactly what one should do -- if one wishes, one's partner wishes, and one thinks that this sort of intimate sex is more interesting -- and a core part of a life worth living.

I fear greatly the life painted by how regulated people "ought" be in these trivial matters: how they walk their dogs, how they have sex, and so on. This is very far away from a life which any human animal ought live. It's a life full of petty regulations on behaviour to create the illusion of a safe world.

An illusion which comes at an extremely heavy price: that of enjoying life. A cost I do not want to pay.

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

#362

Post by doktrin »

COOL_DUDE_2112 wrote: post #352
doktrin wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a delusional take. Your karate class hasn’t prepared you to survive - let alone “stop” - a knife attack and the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion the better.

> This is a delusional take. Your karate class hasn’t prepared you to survive - let alone “stop” - a knife attack and the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion the better. They told us what the person below says for a gun -- just give them what they want if it's not your body. If someone is standing, making threats, blocking your exit, and you've had training, there are techniques to use to disarm them. I know…

> I know this because I've done it at least once in the real

"at least" once? sounds legit.

> The key is to keep an eye on their hands/pockets and move in close, get control of the hand, and then either twist until their tendons are gonna snap or... jam their own knife into their leg/side.

More cap than a lids store.

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

#363

Post by nathan_compton »

mjan22640 wrote: post #294
atleastoptimal wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly that superiority complex may be why neurodivergent people with similar ideas about "normal" people have issues getting along with others, no offense.

NDs lack certain social instincts, that are at the same time very strong in NTs. To a ND, NTs acting under influence of these do appear to be flawed. It is an observation, not a superiority complex. One of the differences is that NDs are not hierarchical, superiority/inferiority of people is a non-category to a ND. Edit: fixed mixed up shortcuts

1. I was being a little facetious. 2. It is absolutely weird to speak for all neurodiverse people in such sweeping ways. I've been involved in the physical sciences most of my adult life and I can tell you I've met plenty of ND people who are also highly competitive and judgemental. Even those these are considered negative traits, you do a disservice to a a huge variety of people by claiming that they are all the same. Its the opposite of acknowledging their diversity.

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

#364

Post by nathan_compton »

tysam_and wrote: post #204
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.

I have autism as well. I don't see normal people as disabled, just different. I think seeing normal people as disabled is a rather myopic perspective, and I sometimes hear it from the community. I don't like it, personally. Typically I believe because many of the times I hear it, it comes with a need for superiority of some kind, and that gets in the way of other various practical things. It's the same kind of tradeo…

I was being a bit facetious. You are right, of course. Fundamentally, I don't see people as abled or disabled anyway. Those labels are contextual, clearly. But look, I've been a weirdo my whole life, allow me a brief moment of superior feeling.

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

#365

Post by gamblor956 »

epivosism wrote: post #202

bystander effect is not valid in the first place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Counter_examp... even wikipedia has updated saying Counter example In 2019, a large international cultural anthropology study analyzed 219 street disputes and confrontations that were recorded by security cameras in three cities in different countries—Lancaster, Amsterdam, and Cape Town. Contrary to bystander theory, the s…

Counter-counter example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/24...

The Bystander was a huge problem in China as recently as 10 years ago, until Chinese authorities made changes to the law.

It's still an issue in India today. (https://www.outlookindia.com/national/explained-delhi-teen-m...)

Quite oddly, the bystander effect is biggest in countries that celebrate collective action, and the smallest in countries with strong individualist bents.

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

#366

Post by lazycog512 »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #356
mjburgess wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that's a reply to me, you havent understood my point. I am well aware of such situations. The question is whether a particular person, in a particular park, on a particular day, with a particular dog is causing that situation. It is an absurd level of paranoia to suppose they are. Dogs kill people. People kill people. Everything is harmful to someone at somepoint. The question is whether we should go aro…

One wonders if you also rail at the authoritarian nature of stoplights. At that on one particular 4-way with that one particular car with that one particular driver, they successfully ran a red light without causing an accident, therefore, we should all just ignore stop lights because they're an authoritarian construct designed to cow us into submission. Or perhaps it's those authoritarian posters telling young peopl…

Bureaucracy is stopping at a red light late at night when no one is coming.

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

#367

Post by deadbeeves »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #357
deadbeeves wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggle to understand how an adult does not realize that leading a normal life requires taking in some amount of risk, unless the person has some kind of learning difficulty. If you want to go outside, there is a non-zero chance that you'll be mauled by a dog without a leash. There's a much greater chance that you'll be involved in a car accident, and cars are policed much more strictly than dog leashes, not to me…

> If you want to go outside, there is a non-zero chance that you'll be mauled by a dog without a leash. That risk lessens significantly if dogs are mandated to be leashed. unleashed dogs are regularly picked up by the city and if they're not claimed by someone w/i a specific amount of time, they're euthanised. This isn't actually helping your case.

Dogs are already mandated to be leashed. That doesn't mean they will be leashed. That's my point.

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

#368

Post by golergka »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #360
golergka wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do experience a powerful obligation That does not contradict my point in any way. I do experience this "obligation" too, and help others, but I don't think this word fits here. But that's just an emotion — that's not a real obligation that I actually owe somebody except for myself. Emotions are my own volition — I'm free to experience whatever I fee like. Real obligations are not; I have to respect them regardles…

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make and judging from the other comments I think its significance might be peculiar to you.

It's the distinction between something that requires personal consent: my own decision to be charitable — and something that doesn't: my obligations. If I owe you money, you can use force to get it. You can't use force me to be charitable.

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

#369

Post by kbelder »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #175
Nadya wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like every pit bull owner up until their totally harmless lovely well trained wouldn't harm a fly pit bull snaps and attacks someone or another dog. The leash in public areas is to be able to control your dog. If you want your dog off of the leash go to private property or a dog park where a gated leashless area exists for those willing to assume the risk. I've seen military trained dogs with training worth te…

Yeah, what is it with dog owners who all seem to be clueless about the dangers of an unleashed dog? Is there a psychological disorder to explain this worldview? In my life, 100% of dog owners all think their dog is "well behaved" when many are not. Bizarre.

And 99% of them are correct.

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

#370

Post by eightysixfour »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #323
eightysixfour wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what arguments like this are: > In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law. Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situat…

watch and be amazed as I successfully do what you're implying can't be done. raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there. Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.

That… isn’t what I said can’t be done. In fact it is the opposite.

I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point.

Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.

Post reply on HN