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.

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.

Cool story.

Also cool story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*without the antipathy against me. Sorry- long workday. I only have two short windows during most days to post here. :-/

Ok.

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).

I'll make an argument for the college-aged person.

They are the most likely to understand and appreciate what happened. The elderly person is more likely to accept not being the first choice, and in fact might be upset if they were saved over a younger person.

The child is unlikely to understand anything that happened, that they were in mortal danger, that a stranger saved their life. Their parents would certainly be very happy though.

The undergraduate has the ability to understand what happened, and might take varying lengths in changing their future outlook on life (and more importantly, their behaviours) to something more positive because their life was saved. The child might do something later in life if the importance of what happened to them is constantly reinforced by the parents, but I expect it would reduce in importance over time. While that will eventually happen to the undergrad as well, they are at a productive age where what they do now matters more than what they might do in a decade or so. I think the few children that might decide "I'll be a doctor so I can save ppl as well" will be outbalanced by the young adults that change majors to something more helpful, volunteer with MSF etc, or just be a kinder person overall.

Well I would not save the child, what if he grew up to be a lawyer? Cant risk saving the college kid, he might be studying to be a lawyer.

I would save the old guy, he might have been a lawyer in his past and maybe he will leave me something in his will.

Well, that's certainly an interesting argument and something I haven't considered. It's a lot different than more typical utilitarian arguments.

It's hard to refute, this being something we don't have any hard data on. Though, I also think people who grow up being saved as a child will tend hold a certain gratitude towards their savior, and though they might not learn the lesson fully there and then, I think it could grow on them as they get older.

I would save the child because I view him as the most innocent. It would be the most just decision.

I was hoping this argument would come a long. It's a very interesting one and perhaps the one that is most relevant to a lot of theological views (though I am not saying that this is the basis of your case).

But is there anything to indicate that a random child will grow up to be more innocent than a random adult?

There is nothing to indicate that a random child will grow up to be more innocent than a random adult. But as it stands at the time, a child is more innocent than an adult. As I reflect on my initial response, I believe the child to be innocent in two different ways; both of which would sway me to save the child.

The first is a moral innocence, which you surmised, is a result of my theological views. Interestingly, my theological views would all but guarantee the child losses his moral innocence at some point on the way to adulthood. And yet, I would think it unjust to consider the child anything but innocent until ultimately he loses his innocence.

The second sense of being innocent is a worldly naivete. This is likely a stronger response for me because I am a parent. Children all require help to survive from birth forward. It is wired into me to protect my children, and in a dire situation my parenting experience would drive me to save the child before the other two people.

What a stupid dumb ass waste of time question! You must have been really lonely and bored when you came up with this assinine question....

Asinine.

If you find a question dumb you can ignore it or were you particularly bored and lonely when you replied?

Ass - inine was exactly how I meant to spell it - lol double meaning -