Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts
psycnet.apa.org
psycnet.apa.org
>While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.
Another example is that case in Indiana where a stage collapsed at a music festival. Immediately after the collapse, videos shows many people going back to try to get trapped people out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5HNtfTdGE
It's really cool that we have people doing this type of researching and showing there's more than just anecdotal evidence that people will respond in these situations.
Worse than a myth: It's an example of something I half-jokingly call "Philosophically True" because it's something repeated and believed in order to bolster a philosophical position, such that it has a truth value even if it's factually wrong because some people are just that resistant to changing their minds. If you want to believe that people are basically shit and have no redeeming value and will watch a woman get killed in full view without doing anything, the usual story appeals to you, and people saying it's factually wrong won't really sway you.
Another example is how the tabula rasa idea shapes some kinds of moral philosophy: If you believe that external cultural indoctrination is absolutely required for people to develop a moral sense, you have to believe that people are blank slates at birth. This is not true, in that even toddlers have a sense of fairness [1], but if there's an innate morality, well, your favored mode of cultural indoctrination is less important and we can't have that, can we?
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-ha...
I like that a lot. Also explains why people get extremely testy when you try to point out it's not factual. Because then they feel you're attacking their moral center.
> If you believe that external cultural indoctrination is absolutely required for people to develop a moral sense, you have to believe that people are blank slates at birth. This is not true, in that even toddlers have a sense of fairness
Reminds me of this. Capuchin monkey fairness experiment.
Right. Humans are social primates so we expect humans to have prosocial instincts, and we expect those instincts to be derived from earlier examples of social primates.
(Googles... )
Hey, Wikipeida has a whole article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals
> In controlled experiments it has been observed, in varying degrees, in capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, macaques, marmosets, dogs, wolves, rats, crows and ravens. No evidence of the effect was found in tests with orangutans, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys, tamarins, kea, and cleaner fish. Due to inconclusive evidence it is assumed that some bonobos, baboons, gibbons, and gorillas may be inequity averse. Disadvantageous inequity aversion is most common, that is, the animal protests when it gets a lesser reward than another animal. But advantageous inequity aversion has been observed as well, in chimpanzees, baboons and capuchins: the animal protests when it gets a better reward. Scientists believe that sensitivity to inequity co-evolved with the ability to cooperate, as it helps to sustain benefitting from cooperation.
As I said, that's pretty much it for the strongest interpretations of tabula rasa: We have innate morality, our ancestors had it back to the dim and distant pre-human prehistory, and the fact it's possible to train kids out of it doesn't prove it wasn't there to begin with. The fact some people don't have it (cf antisocial personality disorder) is proof of a disease process, an acquired or congenital illness, not that those people are "purer" for having no built-in moral sense, or that without society indoctrinating a specific morality we'd all be utterly callous.
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482313144/the-witness-exposes...
That Witness movie sounds similar to this film which was good: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2704816/
Having been in both areas I have an opinion the results would be much different.
For everyone else, bookmark the following:
javascript:window.location='http://sci-hub.tw/'+window.location
I feel like I can't even have a regular conversation on HN, if it`s against groupthink, without being down voted to death.
It`s sad that a seemingly intellectual group has to be so close-minded.
You'll note that, yes the US has a higher violent crime rate, but other crime rates are higher - some far higher (drug offenses, for example, are 327 times higher in the UK; total crime victims is 25% higher in the UK, etc).
So certain types of crime rates are lower - even considerably lower - than the US. But other types of crime rates are higher - even considerably higher - than the US.
It's like there are pros and cons to everywhere.
Drug offenses: 183,419 per 100,000 people
My own decision to intervene is mainly driven by my own feeling of safety. So if I am in an environment where is more people, or I perceive is better monitored, I will be more likely to help, because I am less worried to get into trouble.
I think there's an extra bystander effect if you know there is publicly monitored CCTV. "Why interfere and take a risk, the police know what's happening and will be on the way if it's serious".
If I see suspicious behaviour I might stop and watch, intending to intervene if necessary. If there's police nearby, then I'd point it out to them and carry on with my own business. If you think the police already know, then it seems reasonable one might carry on and ignore uncivil, unlawful, or antisocial behaviour.
There's a secondary effect, if you interfere and end up physically challenging someone then they might not even recall it a later time if they were drunk/drugged. But, if they see footage later, when sober, they might feel annoyed/angry that they were challenged and seek your prosecution.
He was never caught.
I think realising you're being observed can break one out of a cycle of escalation to. That's worked _on_ me as well.
But there are effects like the bystander effect that reduce the probability of help the more people are around. I would think CCTV would act as a similar way for people to question their impulse to help because of their surroundings.
A conscious decision could also be made here since many developed countries have laws that make the act of helping more dangerous from a legal perspective. Oh, you call that a cardiac massage? You killed that poor guy... [exaggerating here]
Why take any responsibility if big brother is around?
I have no data, just suggesting that it may be interesting to test something like that.
edit disclaimer: I regard CCTV as tech garbage that provides no value if it is used to identify people. GB is no more safe than other comparable countries that don't have it.