I don't know really, that often become a question of "what you would you want to do" vs "what would you actually do". I have been in dramatic situations and helped people, but I have never been in one where it was "me or them". I don't think many people know themselves well enough to answer that before it actually happens.

In most catastrophes where time is limited, most people help themselves however. Even parents over their own child (which as you can imagine, with our false culturally perpetuated myth that if you love someone you sacrifice all for them, is something that gives people a lot of guilt). When time isn't that limited, you'll see more altruism.

I'd like to think I'm selfless enough in crisis to aid others even if it means sacrificing my own life, I'm a fairly selfless guy RL so I'd like to be that in crisis as well. But as said... that is something you don't really know until you are faced with such a choice.

In a "real life" scenario, I think it's reasonable to save yourself first, because if you're barely surviving then you really can't help someone else survive effectively. It's hard (impossible?) in that moment to assess chances of death in a way that allows you to accurately conclude "if I help this person, they will live, but I will die. And if I try to save myself, this person will definitely die."

This is exactly why airlines instruct you to put your own mask on first in the event of an emergency. If you lose your life (or just your mental capacity, as is what would happen if you lose oxygen in a plane before you actually die), you're of no use in trying to save others.

It depends what you mean by innocent. I have no idea if the kindergarten teacher is innocent, or what definition of innocent you are using. Sure, if what you wrote is the only available information, I am going to save the kindergarten teacher, but I dont think thats got to do with innocence. Its to do with them being a nicer person, and less of a danger and burden to society. Its possible that the teacher and the murderer are equally innocent( or non innocent, if you want to put it that way). As I said, it depends on your definition

I agree with that, helping yourself can put yourself in a position to administer help and it also makes the job of other potential rescuers simpler. I tried to answer more in line with hypothetical as posed, however.

People generally don't go through such mechanistic balancing acts in emergencies. If they see someone in dire straits, and they can provide safe assistance, they usually do so. This determination occurs automatically; very rarely do you have a circumstance where someone actually has to take a moment to weigh the risk to themselves in taking on the role of Good Samaritan. If you're "barely surviving", you're instinctively thinking about saving yourself, regardless of how well you can assess the chances of of successfully rescuing another.

This is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

This is also false.

This might be false, but is subject to who you are and who the other person is.

But most people live in a manner that is bad for the environment. They live in unsustainable ways, so why not pick the person that's going to live for the fewest years? It would almost certainly be better for the planet.

Good posts!

False; the bystander effect describes specific situations where diffusion of responsibility and ambiguity prevents action, and not general reactions. This has little to do with my statement regarding providing assistance when the circumstances are clear and safe (e.g., calling medics when someone is seriously injured, performing CPR if one is capable and knowledgeable, etc.). Limit the sophism, please.

False; it is a truism. Most circumstances involving the rendering of assistance do not involve careful weighing of risk. Real life is usually not as dramatic as you might have seen in the movies.

False; this too is a truism. If you're barely surviving, you're reasoning faculties generally give way to instinctive self-preservation. Only in special situations is this not so.

Right... because real life decisions are made in such vacuums and when considering a "general reaction" we must not consider such influences. It's not as if there are documented cases in which helping someone in a low risk situation for the helper resulted in no help due to influences such as this.

It is a truism that labeling something a truism in regards to human psychology is a terrible error.

This is non-responsive, i.e., a straw man. No one said anything about "not considering such influences". The point is that the classic bystander effect situations usually involve ambiguity that is atypical of general reactions people have when witnessing someone who is injured or in need of assistance (if you look at the examples cited on the Wikipedia article you posted, this will become clearer to you). This also gets back to my original point about how people generally don't go through mechanistic balancing acts when deciding on assisting others. In the movies, the situation is reversed for dramatic effect.

Also non-responsive; truisms exist in human psychology, and it is a truism that, generally, when threatened with death or serious bodily injury, reasoning faculties give way to instinctive self-preservation. If I had said that it was a truism that this always occurred, you would be correct. As it stands, you are not.

Right. Because in general emergency situations, there's so much clarity as to who is supposed to do what. The cases cited are totally atypical and this whole area of psychological research has nothing to do with general reactions to situations.

Right. Because if someone is drowning, nobody first thinks "I can't swim" before thinking about whether to jump in and help.

That you're doubling down on your truism claim (while adding the "generally" modifier, as if that helps your position somehow) only goes to show the abject poverty of your knowledge of psychology and how desperate you are to try to win the argument that you know you've lost.

Thank you for implicitly affirming my position. Generally, providing assistance in emergency situations is not complicated: if someone needs medical assistance, people call the medics. If someone falls down and can't get up, people who see it generally provide help. Like I said above: the situations cited for the Bystander Effect involve atypical ambiguity (e.g., someone sitting in an ER waiting room; someone lying on an urban street where plenty of homeless people are seen daily, etc.). For the record, I used to live in NYC: in some areas of Manhattan, there are dozens of homeless people lying on the streets within several blocks of each other. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.

Again, thank you for implicitly affirming my position. Even in the case of someone drowning, the decision to render assistance is not mechanistic: if someone can't swim, they don't go into the water. When someone sees a car accident with injuries or someone fall down on the sidewalk, they generally call the police or help the fallen person, respectively. To escape this generality, you had to cite the instance of drowning, and then posit a person who cannot swim, though even here, there is no mechanistic balancing act: if the person can't swim, he/she calls for help, throws a life preserver, etc. No point in jumping into the water and drowning yourself in trying to save someone. You've been watching too many drowning movies lol.

This is rather amusing; you've lost the argument, so now you're not only projecting your defeat, but lying about my "adding" of the "generally" modifier. The truism I originally cited always carried the "generally" modifier. Allow me to quote myself from below:

You know what the funniest part is? You even QUOTED me saying this lol. Epic fail. The reason I'm "doubling down" on this truism is because it is a truism, and I want to make sure you understand why you're wrong. When you keep denying something that is true, I'm going to keep pointing out why you're wrong. Are you that destitute of emotional restraint and humility as to not only refuse to admit your mistake, but lie about what your interlocutor has said?

Please, show me where in established psychology there exists a contradiction to the truism that people's reasoning faculties generally give way to instinctive self-preservation in circumstances involving threat of death or serious bodily injury. If anything, a better rebuttal on your part here would perhaps have been to argue that this is more aptly situated in the world of physiology, not psychology, as opposed to engaging in these illogical gymnastics to escape one of the most epic errors I've seen from you thus far.

Not too cool, Mickey.

You know the drill.

Nobody is making any claims about the level of complication. The claim is regarding the level of action.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2016.303127

Assuming nothing about the individuals, disregard age.... The person closest to me. Shortest path.

And if distance is not in the mix?

I see you've failed to respond to the majority of the debate issues above. I appreciate the implicit admission that you failed to notice that I had originally included "generally" in the truism we discussed earlier (which is even more puzzling, given that you quoted me saying it).

Secondly, you originally wrote the following:

My "complicated" statement referred to the fact that in most situations regarding the rendering of assistance to others, there is no mechanistic balancing or deciding whether or not it is safe to do so. Such circumstances are the exception to the rule, not to the standard.

You're proving my point here about the bystander effect being most pronounced in situations of ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility. The study you cited looked at forms filled out by patients waiting for EMS on the street, asking them if they received support from bystanders. How many bystanders passed by the patient? Was the patient sitting on the side of the street, or lying spread eagle in the middle of it? Did most of the areas in the study have a significant homeless population? Did the bystanders just see the patient in the street, or did they know of the injury? Etc., etc.

Again, the general rule is that if people see someone get injured, they offer assistance if it is reasonable under the circumstances (e.g., someone falls down in front of you, or gets hit by a car, etc). If someone is sitting on the side of the street or lying in the corner waiting for EMS, the bystander effect is more pronounced because those bystanders did not see the injury and don't know if the person is actually suffering any emergency. I mentioned this above: I lived in NYC for a few years, and if I saw someone sitting on the street, lying in a corner, or slumped up against a wall, I would not think they were having a medical emergency. That's where the bystander effect is most pronounced.

I'm amused that you think I've disagreed with this. Clearly, your ability to parse an argument is solid.

Right... because these types of speculations totally make it look like you know what you're talking about.

You keep saying things like this and call them truisms, but the evidence very clearly shows that you're wrong. Because... you know... evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac

Yes, it must be terribly "amusing" for you to have your implicit argument about the bystander effect being the norm get refuted over and over again. It is not the norm: it concerns situations with high concentrations of ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility. Tell me more about "parsing", though.

This is not a counterargument whatsoever. It's been made clear to you that the bystander effect is contrary to general observations regarding people providing assistance to others when they see them injured. In response, you've just provided a study of the bystander effect, and you apparently did not even investigate the methodology of the study or the specifics too closely. If you did, you would have been asking the same questions I did. Tell me more about knowing what you're "talking about", though.

Because...you know...saying "evidence" is the same thing as "providing evidence". Right. Still waiting for you to provide counter-evidence as to the truism of reasoning faculties generally giving way to instinctive self-preservation in situations where one is threatened with death. Whenever you're ready.

Not here to watch YouTube videos- no need to share your interests with me. Focus on the debate.

I don't think the planet cares much. If we continue being bad for the environment at our current rate, the planet will be here long after we've gone.

If we don't and improve our environmental ways, we have a much bigger chance of finding some super-phenomena that could destroy the planet as our knowledge progresses.

So if you want to save the planet, start polluting. If you want to save humans, you should probably stop.

Yup. You totally understand what you're talking about, both in terms of my argument and in terms of human psychology. Totally. You're winning bigly here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpdUbW8vbw

I love this strategy- when you get your position refuted, just turn to sarcasm to save face. Very nice. I guess pointing out that the bystander effect applies in situations of ambiguity/diffusion of responsibility and that reasoning faculties generally give way to instinctive self-preservation when faced with threat of death (i.e., "fight or flight") are just things I made up in my head :-/.

Not here to watch YouTube videos- no need to share your interests with me. Focus on the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=175ig2I9rt0

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.

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.

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. 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).

I have a very low interest in once again making myself a target for Lychon's dreary armchair warfare and forum trolling. But I am a social psychologist and an expert in this field. 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. 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.

Not here to watch YouTube videos- no need to share your interests with me. Focus on the debate.