A hypothetical "who do you save?"
Op, if God forbid you are one of the adults involved in the accident and still you are capable of doing something, what you will do?
A-help the child?
A-help the other adult?
C-take care of just yourself?
P.S. By the way, my answer to your question is: Instinctively I give the first aid to the child.
A-help the child?
A-help the other adult?
C-take care of just yourself?
P.S. By the way, my answer to your question is: Instinctively I give the first aid to the child.
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.
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.
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's absolutely a reason. To demonstrate this, suppose you have a convicted murderer drowning and a kindergarten teacher drowning. You can only save one. Who do you save? Obviously, it's not the same as the initial scenario but the concept of innocence still plays a role in your decision, does it not?
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.
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.
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
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.
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.
We automatically assume and place the context of the above hypothetical to what we are familiar with. No one thought that the hypothetical was in China, or Zimbabwe or Uruguay, or India for example. Would that make a difference? (gender is not specified in the example). The child has a certain chance to grow up a drug addict, a prostitute, a criminal, a wastrel. A parasite on society. The College Senior less so, but still possible. It is also possible the retiree has more than one or a few hidden skeletons in the closet - a current child abuser? but never caught, a degenerate person with a terrible family history, etc.
It would take some doing but saving the older person is probably the wisest thing to do. If you use nothing but a utility calculus (and probability). How this would hold across different locations throughout the world is another interesting hypothetical.
It would take some doing but saving the older person is probably the wisest thing to do. If you use nothing but a utility calculus (and probability). How this would hold across different locations throughout the world is another interesting hypothetical.
It is also interesting on who does the saving. Just to add some fuel to the flames, take an old Jesuit as the deciding savior. Using this Jesuit Motto: Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man; a Jesuit takes the 5-year old, every time*. And for their own draconian ends, if you wish to view it that way. Others may view it differently and find my use of the word draconian a bit much. So be it. Worldviews often clash, openly and in supposed secrecy.
* Of course I know that the Jesuit doesn't own the child etc, it's still an interesting thing to contemplate.
* Of course I know that the Jesuit doesn't own the child etc, it's still an interesting thing to contemplate.
Good posts!
This is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
Originally Posted by Lychon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Lychon
"you're reasoning faculties generally give way to instinctive self-preservation"
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.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2016.303127
Bystanders provided help to patients suffering a wide range of medical emergencies, but only about 1 in 39 patients (2.57%) received bystander support.
You can administer first aid to one of three people after an accident. A 5 year-old child, a college senior or a retiree who has worked and paid taxes his entire adult life. The ones not receiving first aid will die.
Disregard age when it comes to treatment, assume that all have an equal chance of being restored to good health. You know nothing more.
Who do you attempt to save and why?
Disregard age when it comes to treatment, assume that all have an equal chance of being restored to good health. You know nothing more.
Who do you attempt to save and why?
And if distance is not in the mix?
Secondly, you originally wrote the following:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
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."
Bystanders provided help to patients suffering a wide range of medical emergencies, but only about 1 in 39 patients (2.57%) received bystander support. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2016.303127
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.
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).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac
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.
Not here to watch YouTube videos- no need to share your interests with me.
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.
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.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE