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

121–130 of 386 posts

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

#121

Post by deadbeeves »

idiotsecant wrote: post #111
omginternets wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as a well-behaved dog. I don't see the social benefit of enforcing every last little law on the books all the time. I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and caus…

Ok, let's say your dog is well behaved. I think we can agree that lots of other people who think that their dog is well behaved actually have a dog that is potentially dangerous. How am I supposed to know by looking at you and your dog which it is? So now I get to feel in danger so that you can feel slightly more at home. How does that make sense? This is an excellent example of 'ridiculous government overreach' that…

If just seeing a dog without a leash is enough for you to feel in danger you probably shouldn't leave your home, let alone go to the park. That aside, you don't have a right to not feel in danger. You don't even have a right to not be in danger, though you do have a right to not be put in danger deliberately or by negligence.

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

#122

Post by Daneel_ »

anigbrowl wrote: post #108
mjburgess wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a dog, but i've known many and never a dangerous one. In the UK its very common to have large parks with dogs just running around; I'm not aware of any cases where this has caused a problem. I've no objection to the rule. My issue is with how the rule is being interpreted. If someone were to ask, 'please keep a leash on' i'd expect people to be polite enough to do so. But that's the gravity of the situat…

I don't have a dog This largely disqualifies all your subsequent opinionation. I could tell you some stories about the ups and downs of owning/training large working dogs, but instead I'd urge you to reflect on whether your elaborate critique of abstraction is grounded in anything firmer than your assumptions.

One does not need to own a dog to have been around them for extended periods of time.

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

#123

Post by ralusek »

tgv wrote: post #37
ralusek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a brown haired person. I'm also a person with brown hair. Neither phrasing makes my brown hair a disease I carry.

There's no point in arguing about these interpretations. Some people get convinced that "X with Y" means that X has Y, and since this is used in sentences like "X has cancer," autism is portrayed as a disease. There are other people who oppose the adjectival phrase for similar reasons. IMO, the point in these cases is more that a certain phrase has obtained a negative connotation, and should be avoided, but it is fra…

Euphemism treadmill, etc.

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

#124

Post by omginternets »

Yoric wrote: post #7

Anecdotal evidence: around me, several kids are on the autistic spectrum. It's hard to prevent them from intervening when they notice what they feel is an injustice, towards them or others. At some point, this included one of them regularly attempting to rescue babies from baby trolleys, which they considered a prison. Fortunately, the would-be rescuer was only aged 3 at the time.

I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others in need" would be the go-to example of how this confusion(?) can lead to a positive outcome.

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

#125

Post by eightysixfour »

omginternets wrote: post #107
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels like something is going wrong here in your connecting a dog being off a leash with somehow empathy for the dog. If that dog bites someone it dies, how is that not empathetic? dogs are typically required to be on leashes in parks and public areas for a reason.

There is such a thing as a well-behaved dog. I don't see the social benefit of enforcing every last little law on the books all the time. I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and caus…

No, society works because we broadly trust that others will follow laws and that institutions will enforce the laws. It has been decided, by the public, that public spaces should not have off leash dogs in them because every dog is a “good dog” until it isn’t and someone or someone else’s animal pays the price.

This is like saying it is okay for good drivers to drive through stop signs, because they’re there for the bad drivers. Just moronic.

If you want to be somewhere where you can behave however you want, move away from other people. Pretty straightforward.

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

#126

Post by anigbrowl »

orwin wrote: post #14
RecycledEle wrote: post #8

[flagged]

It's not sociopathy, it's more like 'wtf should I do'. I passed a weird certification in highschool to learn how to deal with injuries and dangerous situations (car crash, someone passing out in public) and so far it helped twice. Each time the other helpers had the same (or similar) training I did. However when I met two people fighting each other in public, violently (blood and teeth), I was under a severe bystande…

However when I met two people fighting each other in public, violently (blood and teeth), I was under a severe bystander effect I thought I wouldn't have

This is pretty rational actually, since you have no way of knowing who the instigator and who the victim (if any) is. A person who's been attacked for no reason will generally make it obvious, trying to escape or hang on property that's being taken from them or evincing other signs of distress. If you find two people actively going at each other and there isn't an obvious underdog, it's probably best not to intervene physically.

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

#127

Post by jchanimal »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #102
mjburgess wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, it's not really about the leash -- nor the sign. It's about people who deputise themselves in the service of these rules, and who imagine risk, and appoint themselves enforces of a social order of values that is insensitive to particulars. There are many things I dislike, take littering. I would find it very obnoxious for a person to litter in a park, and to ignore the signs against it. But I feel no compu…

Just stop, people want dogs leashed in public for safety. This isn't some social order of insensitive assholes, this is because people actually get maimed by dogs and it's easier to have a blanket rule that all dogs (or all animals) must be leashed. There is no magical effect of some cadre of people trying to enforce some silliness onto the general public, there's a reason behind these laws.

I think the op is saying, and I might not disagree with them, that a world where dogs run free is a better world, even if it’s more dangerous.

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

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

Daneel_ wrote: post #122
anigbrowl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a dog This largely disqualifies all your subsequent opinionation. I could tell you some stories about the ups and downs of owning/training large working dogs, but instead I'd urge you to reflect on whether your elaborate critique of abstraction is grounded in anything firmer than your assumptions.

One does not need to own a dog to have been around them for extended periods of time.

This is like lifelong pedestrians having opinions on car drivers; they're valid to some extent, but if you've never driven a vehicle your understanding of driving issues is necessarily superficial.

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

#130

Post by Buttons840 »

deadbeeves wrote: post #121
idiotsecant wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's say your dog is well behaved. I think we can agree that lots of other people who think that their dog is well behaved actually have a dog that is potentially dangerous. How am I supposed to know by looking at you and your dog which it is? So now I get to feel in danger so that you can feel slightly more at home. How does that make sense? This is an excellent example of 'ridiculous government overreach' that…

If just seeing a dog without a leash is enough for you to feel in danger you probably shouldn't leave your home, let alone go to the park. That aside, you don't have a right to not feel in danger. You don't even have a right to not be in danger, though you do have a right to not be put in danger deliberately or by negligence.

If they feel threatened by dogs off leashes, that's them, let them live. It seems perfectly reasonable for such a person to go someplace where dogs must be on leashes.
Post reply on HN