Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2017, 07:17 AM   #76
Lychon
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Crocker Land
Posts: 81
Re: A hypothetical "who do you save?"

I want to preface this retort by saying that you could easily have made your argument with the antipathy against me. You still would have been wrong, but it would at least have opened up dialogue on this issue between us on more amicable grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
The bystander effect is one of the social psychological phenomena most strongly backed up by experiments. It's renowned for being very replicable. To claim it only happens in "special cases" (like when there is diffusion of responsibility) shows a very basic misunderstanding of experimental method.
This is a misrepresentation of my position. I never claimed that the bystander effect occurs "only" in the circumstances discussed above. Rather, the claim is that it is most pronounced when those conditions are concentrated (e.g., diffusion of responsibility, ambiguity, etc.). The problem is that you're reading my responses to Aaron W. out of context: the reason I focused on ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility is because those specific conditions are absent or not significantly present in the circumstances I was originally referencing.

Moreover, it is unclear what you mean by the "experimental method" in this context: it is precisely the presence of these conditions in the classic bystander effect scenarios that characterizes the "experimental method" testing the effect (not all tests, of course). In an attempt to endow your opening paragraph with a veneer of learnedness, you've managed to ably demonstrate your own misunderstanding of what "experimental method" means.

Moreover, this still has little to do with my claim that in most cases involving injury, those who see the injury occur, and can reasonably provide assistance, do so. Common scenarios include helping someone rise after seeing them fall, or calling for EMS after witnessing a serious vehicular collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
Experimental method shows causation between a variables. Group size is the independent variable (the one that the experimenter changes) in the original experiments , the dependent variable is people helping. When you increase group size (to a certain point), the odds of people helping decrease. This finding is pretty much irrefutable and rock solid. The experiment has been replicated ad nauseum. There are some cultures where the experiments tend to show different trends, I'm not going into great detail on that - but those interested can probably find it by looking it up.
Cool story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
After this it is natural to assume that increasing group size affects some traits of the groups in question. This is because you know that since there is more people, you're not decreasing the amount of people that could help, but for some reason you tend to decrease the amount of people that would help. It is a very counter-intuitive finding, which is why it is so interesting. And research do indeed show that when you use those traits (for example group cohesion) as independent variables, they do indeed affect the outcome.
Also cool story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
But it's still a misunderstanding to claim that they are therefore the variable that matters, because we already know that group size affects them. The reason they are very interesting, is because this is the behavior that you can attempt to change without necessarily affecting group size (very relevant for large cities, for example).
Well, you've just shown that that is at least one of the variables that "matters", so...yeah. But either way, I never claimed that those were the "only" variables that matter, only that such variables (e.g., ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility relative to group size) are quite pronounced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
I have a very low interest in once again making myself a target for Lychon's dreary armchair warfare and forum trolling.
Most amusing: tame_deuces comments with a needlessly confrontational (though still erroneous) post that bastardizes my position, and then talks about not wising to make himself a "target". Tell me more about how this "target" business syncs with your behavior on the alternate cosmological argument thread, where you magically decided to respond to my first post about the cosmological argument after Original_Position nipped the 'polemic'/'argument' discussion in the bud, all of a sudden discovering that you "disagreed" with it. What a coincidence! Is that what you mean by not making yourself a "target"? Hmmm...I guess your m.o. is to turn bellicose upon losing an argument, and then play the victim to deflect. Lovely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
But I am a social psychologist and an expert in this field.
Wow. And yet you misunderstood a very simple argument regarding the bystander effect, not to mention appear to have a poor grasp on what "experimental method" means. Try not to randomly insert the word "only" in front of your interlocutor's arguments after decontextualizing them just so you can fabricate fodder for your contrarian BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
I have zero tolerance for willfully ignorant interpretations of a very valuable understanding of human interaction to be read and potentially believed by someone stumbling on this thread by chance.
Then you should ask a moderator to delete your most recent post on this thread, because it is wilful ignorance in a nutshell. Also, playing the holier-than-thou card when you're plain wrong, not to mention being needlessly confrontational in hopes of distancing yourself from the humiliation of not knowing that 'polemic' is interchangeable with 'argument', is a rather poor move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
Tens of thousands of hours of research wasn't made just so people like Lychon can take out singular sentences and use them to shove lies down people's throats while calling everyone who objects stupid.
What lies? Oh, you mean the lies you uttered when you "willfully misinterpreted" my argument regarding the bystander effect? I see. Please show me where I said that the bystander effect occurs "only" where ambiguity, diffusion of responsibility, etc. are present. Show me. I am waiting. When you accuse someone of lying, you sure as hell better be able to back it up. But even more importantly, never, ever, ever admit to being a social psychologist while simultaneously making it abundantly clear that you don't know how to use the phrase "experimental method".

Oh, and lastly, where did I call anyone "stupid"? Not seeing that. Maybe you're referring to Aaron W. talking about my "alma mater being so proud of me", and somehow confusing me for Aaron W.? Maybe? When someone makes unreasonable or distinctly wrong claims/conclusions in a conversation involving me, you better believe I'm going to call them out on it, just like I'm calling out your rather crooked and fallacious accusations against me here. The fact that you're engaging in this behavior under the guise of "zero tolerance for willfully ignorant interpretations" demonstrates the level of abject desperation you've sunk to over the past few weeks, not to mention brilliant irony.

Last edited by Lychon; 03-16-2017 at 07:40 AM.
Lychon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 06:39 PM   #77
Lychon
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Crocker Land
Posts: 81
Re: A hypothetical "who do you save?"

*without the antipathy against me. Sorry- long workday. I only have two short windows during most days to post here. :-/
Lychon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 07:12 PM   #78
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,006
Re: A hypothetical "who do you save?"

Ok.
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:52 AM   #79
Giancarlo672
newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 20
Re: A hypothetical "who do you save?"

1st try would be to save all. If i could not, then i'll choose to save a small kid. Or to whomever i could save but i'll try my best.
Giancarlo672 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:32 AM   #80
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,006
Re: A hypothetical "who do you save?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo672 View Post
1st try would be to save all. If i could not, then i'll choose to save a small kid. Or to whomever i could save but i'll try my best.
Why would you save the child?

I'm not arguing with you, but the why is just as interesting as the who (if not more).
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online