People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by RoyalHenOil » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:53 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #115

mtreis86 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never had a loose dog try to attack me. Plenty of dogs on leashes have lunged tho. So I treat the leash status as a signal of how much the owner trusts the dog to behave.

Not that I think there’s much credence to this signal as you’ve stated it, but it does have overlap with what I try to convey to people when I ask them to leash their own dog: it’s for the safety of their dog as much as it is for mine. In other words, as I’ve tried to explain it, “even if your dog is perfectly well behaved, you have no idea if my dog or any other you may encounter is a danger to your dog.” This has b…

This is 1000% my experience. Even farmers with working herd dogs, who can completely trust their dogs because they work off-leash 10+ hours per day, still clip on a lead in public.

It's not because they don't trust their dog. It's because they don't trust OTHER people's dogs -- especially because a good 80-90% of people with off-leash dogs don't actually have control of their dogs. They just really like the aesthetic of an off-leash dog and, by golly, they're going to do it--even if they haven't put in the gruelling training it requires, and even if it means their dog is endangered by other dogs. They don't care or think about it because they don't actually have a deep bond with their dog and value it; it's an accessory.

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

#252

Post by golergka » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

lucubratory wrote: post #217

golergka wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you perceive somebody who needs held and requires it as injustice? Helping others is an ethical thing, the right thing to do, but never an obligation that we owe them.

A situation where someone requires help but is not receiving it is unjust, because people's needs are not being met while others have more than they need. It is also unfair, because if you require help and have several randomly distributed attributes, you will receive that help, whereas if you require help and do not have those random accidents of birth you generally will not receive that help. That is definitionally…

This doesn't really makes sense. Two things that you mention, like determining what people need and role of random chance, don't have anything to do with justice.

For me, justice is fulfilment of obligations between people, that we either take explicitly (as promises or contracts), or a very limited number that should be implicitly upheld by all — about aggression and property. But while helping others is a good deed, I don't think anybody thinks you have an obligation to anybody except your own conciseness or g-d, if you believe in one.

And about random chance — that's your relationship with nature or g-d (again, used here not out of religious sense, but just a very useful rhetoric device), and they're not subjects to justice, because they're not people. Surely, you don't expect other people to have an obligation to correct nature or g-d's perceived mistakes or injustices?

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

#253

Post by tessierashpool » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:10 AM UTC

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…

the narrative about the bystander effect is not real either. two of Kitty Genovese's neighbors helped her, one even confronting her attacker. there were also several calls to the police.

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

#254

Post by reanimus » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:11 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #230

BirdieNZ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ADHD and autism are comorbid in one direction (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).

> 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).

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

#255

Post by nrclark » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:13 AM UTC

xwdv wrote: post #156

permo-w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#256

Post by INTPenis » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:16 AM UTC

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…

I'm inclined to agree simply because humans are way too complex to be defined in that way.

But I have a story of a pretty horrible case of bystaderism that I saw 10+ years ago. A man suddenly had an epileptic fit, or something of that effect, in the street. I was about 30 meters away and saw hos this man just fell to the ground suddenly. On a busy downtown street in Sweden's 4th largest city. People who were walking behind him literally stepped over him and kept walking while I ran towards him to see what was wrong.

But I wasn't the only one who ran to him. The stand out thing was specifically a couple who were walking at his pace behind him and just stepped over him and kept walking, a young couple too in their 20s. Very strange and forever stuck in my head.

But both me and several others rushed to his aide and stayed with him, held him in the side position, until he regained consciousness.

Anyways, about 10 years later I find out I have mild autism.

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

#257

Post by RoyalHenOil » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #244

RoyalHenOil wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a dog lover and lifelong dog owner, keep your fucking dog leashed and away from mine. I will 100% defend my dogs with lethal force if I have to, and I will pursue any legal action I can against you. Just because you think your dog is OK doesn't mean that other dogs are OK with your dog; they don't know your dog, and I don't know your dog. I hug my friends, but if a strangers runs up and hugs me, I will interpret t…

Sure. When there’s other dogs around I keep her leashed. When I’m walking her by myself at night when there’s no one around I’m not going to leash her.

If you can hold true to that (e.g., she has excellent recall and you can reliably leash her immediately if anyone else shows up, such that no one even knows you have broken the law), then I am OK with that.

Most people who let their dog off-leash in on-leash areas do not have that kind of control (even when they think they do), and for that reason, I am in favor of the law coming down very hard on this.

(At the same time, I am strongly in favor of more designated off-leash parks. As much as I hate off-leash dogs running around, a fair percentage of this is due to a lack of dog-friendly spaces, and fines can only do so much to mitigate it. I would be in favor of all earnings from off-leash fines having to go toward building and maintaining local dog parks.)

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

#258

Post by ashirviskas » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:20 AM UTC

penjelly wrote: post #234

permo-w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

or maybe people are in a new place and processing a totally foreign environment? Maybe theyre stressed/tired from flying? Not thinking because theyre in a rush? Its not that hard to find reasons for why people might make mistakes in an airport. > 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 wit…

>what? people are following direction, and the way the plane boards is actually important to how fast it loads, so youre messing with that because its a mild convenience to you and you consider that intelligent behaviour?

What direction? The only time there were more directions than just "priority" vs "non priority" was on my flight to Korea a few years ago. Most smaller flights in Europe, sadly, do not do that.

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

#259

Post by qball » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #124

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.

>I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules.

Yes, and the people who believe that this is not how things should work are, in a word, wrong.

Polities and societies who believe this tend to be very economically prosperous; GDP per capita has a positive correlation with this concept (countries with common law but no meaningfully codified negative rights come a relatively distant are second, civil law countries come third, and despotic regimes a distant fourth).

Immigration patterns of high-skill/high-educated workers follow this correlation as well; all high-achievers want to live in the US, those who aren't quite as autistic land in Canada or the UK, Continental Europe is not a meaningful destination for high-skill migration, and people will die trying to get out of China.

The problem with autistic-minded people, when operating under the notion that society has rules, tend to leak an outsized amount of political power into that society. A society that successfully prohibits itself from trying to capture that power prospers; a society that does not eventually becomes corrupt and devours its own ability to properly motivate those people to bother driving it forward.

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

#260

Post by NeuroCoder » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:33 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #239

NeuroCoder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also say "Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not make corrections for multiple comparisons.". I don't think that means this should be dismissed entirely because you accomplish what you can with the data available to you. It's extremely hard to conduct studies of specialized populations and if we waited for the perfect conditions nothing would get done. We should just be careful not to make any s…

> They also say "Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not make corrections for multiple comparisons.". Do you think this is somehow a point in their defense? Corrections for multiple comparisons reduce the significance numbers of your results; probably they found that if they corrected for multiple comparisons their p-value was above 0.05 and they wouldn't be able to publish their paper, so they undid…

I was just adding onto why we should be skeptical. I'm assuming this was published because it's hard to find data like this, not because the results were spectacular