Thread: Old man gets hit by car - people just stand around and cars drive on by. . .

Originally Posted by danny81

lmao her name is kitty genove.

Prime example the rest of us are talking about the main objective here and then this idiot comes in giggling about some womans name.....

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Do you have a link?
I'm talking about the Kitty Genovese post.
That's a pretty well off Jewish and Italian nieghborhood.

Originally Posted by DaMayor

"Catherine Susan Genovese (July 7, 1935[1] — March 13, 1964), commonly known as Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York.[3] .....

Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was the example used in Psych 101 when I was in college.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Yeah, I heard you loud and clear. More trash excusing people not taking responsibility for their actions, putting the reaction on circumstances that cause a "disease". How about you take your condescending recommendation and fuck yourself with it, yes? I've been on the receiving end of thoughtless assholes, a diabetic going into hypoglycemic state while smashing into the freeway divider and having people zoom by while my girlfriend screams for help and sugar. I don't need to research into your rationalization because I think it's shit. A "perfect storm" occurs, oh man, theres one explanation for people not taking responsibility and demonstrating rank cowardice. It's a good thing this disease doesn't effect everyone.

What's doubtful, that I've been up close in a tragic or horrifying situation? Thats a pretentious assertion of FACT considering you don't know me.

FUCK I lost my nice thought-out response.

Since I already spent way too much time on that response, I will have to give you the cliff notes.

What's doubtful, that I've been up close in a tragic or horrifying situation? Thats a pretentious assertion of FACT considering you don't know me.

Well thats a NO, thanks for answering.

You are fucking retard if you cant understand the widely accepted idea I posted.

If your girlfriend was screaming she wasn't in that bad of shape, this guys brains were leaking out. Sounds like you were there so why the fuck do you care what others did, you want them stopping to GAWK?

Too bad we all aren't superman like you. In the end you are just a dumb cunt who says what he would do but in the end you weren't there, so shut the fuck up. Considering how defensive you are I bet you fucked up in a similar situation or subconsciously know you are a pussy who would freeze up. Enjoy being smarter and better then the rest of the world, you dumb cunt.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Yeah, I heard you loud and clear. More trash excusing people not taking responsibility for their actions, putting the reaction on circumstances that cause a "disease". How about you take your condescending recommendation and fuck yourself with it, yes? I've been on the receiving end of thoughtless assholes, a diabetic going into hypoglycemic state while smashing into the freeway divider and having people zoom by while my girlfriend screams for help and sugar. I don't need to research into your rationalization because I think it's shit. A "perfect storm" occurs, oh man, theres one explanation for people not taking responsibility and demonstrating rank cowardice. It's a good thing this disease doesn't effect everyone.

What's doubtful, that I've been up close in a tragic or horrifying situation? Thats a pretentious assertion of FACT considering you don't know me.

You are an educated person, which surprises me by about your comments. Applying a name to sociological phenomenas does not exsolve anyone from their actions, it just makes it easier for us to understand why these things happen. Individuals are typically kind, caring, and sympathetic to their fellow human's needs. Groups usually are not. You can ignore human sociology and call everyone who is a bystander an asshole, and maybe they are, but it doesn't help explain anything, and it doesn't provide a starting point for improving these situations.



I think there is another syndrome going on here that I call the internet armchair hero syndrome.


I have been in numous situations where I was in the place of a bystander. I didn't react in a very helpful manner when I was young and ignorent to the ways of the world and human nature. My natural response was to think that I wasn't the right person to deal with this and that somebody much more qualified would handle it better, so I did nothing.

It was the story of Catherine Susan Genovese I learned about in my freshman year psych class that completely changed my attitude on crisis situations. From that day on, when I heard "Help", "Stop", "Fire", "Rape", ect I come running. I'm not a different person now than I was before, instead I am just a person empowered by knowledge.


Genovese syndrome is a fact. You can cut it down to "people are assholes" if you want, but that isn't the attitude of an educated person, and I know you are way smarter than this.

Originally Posted by KelJu

I think there is another syndrome going on here that I call the internet armchair hero syndrome.


It was the story of Catherine Susan Genovese I learned about in my freshman year psych class that completely changed my attitude on crisis situations. From that day on, when I heard "Help", "Stop", "Fire", "Rape", ect I come running. I'm not a different person now than I was before, instead I am just a person empowered by knowledge.

Genovese syndrome is a fact. You can cut it down to "people are assholes" if you want, but that isn't the attitude of an educated person, and I know you are way smarter than this.

I made the comment earlier that people were "selfish bastards". And while this might be true to a certain extent, I think in most "emergency" situations, people are just scared......mainly due to a lack of knowledge, and not complete ignorance.

I don't see why Doughnut Hole is getting so snappy about the subject.

Originally Posted by Splash Log

FUCK I lost my nice thought-out response.

Since I already spent way too much time on that response, I will have to give you the cliff notes.

What's doubtful, that I've been up close in a tragic or horrifying situation? Thats a pretentious assertion of FACT considering you don't know me.

Well thats a NO, thanks for answering.

You are fucking retard if you cant understand the widely accepted idea I posted.

If your girlfriend was screaming she wasn't in that bad of shape, this guys brains were leaking out. Sounds like you were there so why the fuck do you care what others did, you want them stopping to GAWK?

Too bad we all aren't superman like you. In the end you are just a dumb cunt who says what he would do but in the end you weren't there, so shut the fuck up. Considering how defensive you are I bet you fucked up in a similar situation or subconsciously know you are a pussy who would freeze up. Enjoy being smarter and better then the rest of the world, you dumb cunt.

I will respond hoping not to inflame more personal assaults. I don't have to accept what I consider to be a deterministic over- complication of the issue that seems to pervade various fields of thought. I wasn't there so I need to shut the fuck up? Just because your conclusions are gentle doesn't allow you the exclusive opportunity of insight, while the opposition gets defined out of the problem itself.

You are fucking retard if you cant understand the widely accepted idea I posted.

The implication here is that because your assertion is widely accepted, I must accept it. Fallacious. Muzzling discourse is a bad strategy.

Too bad we all aren't superman like you. In the end you are just a dumb cunt who says what he would do but in the end you weren't there, so shut the fuck up.

Another bad argument. Again, your analysis is not first hand experience so your commentary would be moot by your logic. The rest of that diatribe is irrelevant.

If your girlfriend was screaming she wasn't in that bad of shape, this guys brains were leaking out. Sounds like you were there so why the fuck do you care what others did, you want them stopping to GAWK?

Not a very provocative argument. Let me elaborate: there have been several occasions where I, personally, have been at the receiving end of inaction (as a diabetic) that nearly cost me life. If my responses seem uniquely brutal or in conflict with common tolerance, it is because of a environmentally influenced bias.

In situations of choice and free will, I disavow the complication and support a simplified answer. This is because I believe any complication of the topic is groundless. Feel free to dispute what I support, you seem to be in a enthusiastic agreement with each other, but chop out the belittling commentary.

Originally Posted by KelJu

You are an educated person, which surprises me by about your comments. Applying a name to sociological phenomenas does not exsolve anyone from their actions, it just makes it easier for us to understand why these things happen. Individuals are typically kind, caring, and sympathetic to their fellow human's needs. Groups usually are not. You can ignore human sociology and call everyone who is a bystander an asshole, and maybe they are, but it doesn't help explain anything, and it doesn't provide a starting point for improving these situations.



I think there is another syndrome going on here that I call the internet armchair hero syndrome.


I have been in numous situations where I was in the place of a bystander. I didn't react in a very helpful manner when I was young and ignorent to the ways of the world and human nature. My natural response was to think that I wasn't the right person to deal with this and that somebody much more qualified would handle it better, so I did nothing.

It was the story of Catherine Susan Genovese I learned about in my freshman year psych class that completely changed my attitude on crisis situations. From that day on, when I heard "Help", "Stop", "Fire", "Rape", ect I come running. I'm not a different person now than I was before, instead I am just a person empowered by knowledge.


Genovese syndrome is a fact. You can cut it down to "people are assholes" if you want, but that isn't the attitude of an educated person, and I know you are way smarter than this.

A good point to be made here is that after being educated, you were able to adjust your response. I don't personally feel that an education is necessary, although it most certainly is necessary in terms of optimizing the response. This does of course demonstrate the point that it was always a choice.

My natural response was to think that I wasn't the right person to deal with this and that somebody much more qualified would handle it better, so I did nothing.

Whether right or wrong, this is a mode of thought that demonstrates in effect a rationalization. It's true that extemporaneously, the fear and uncertainty as a natural reaction often result in a good person doing nothing. But as it's been said, all it takes for evil to triumph is for a good person to do nothing. While the quote in question does not transfer seamlessly, its close enough.

I believe that when a person is suffering, injured, or in any kind of agony and a person "looks on" and doesn't try and help, they are responsible for making a bad choice . The response doesn't have to save them or relieve their pain, but it should demonstrate intent aligned with basic human decency. This is built on a moral belief.

I am not an arm-chair internet hero, thanks. Being aligned with praising heroic behavior and looking down at indecision isn't inherently self-righteous. As surely as I've been overlooked by people who could have helped, I've been saved by people who have given me an opportunity to keep living. It is a partisan way of looking at things to be sure, very specifically related to my own experience. But I'm not going to apologize for it.

And if the words I used were offensive or overly critical, I apologize. It was overly harsh, and I'm not perfect, so I apologize for that.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

The implication here is that because your assertion is widely accepted, I must accept it. Fallacious.

this is fine. Indeed, if we never questioned research our advances in the field would be very limited. I don't know if the problem here, though, is our understanding that such a human tendency exists or if such a tendency excuses the behavior. If you do not accept this as a human tendency I must ask why? Is it because you would not do it or do you believe that this was an isolated incident full of a-holes that just didn't give a crap. If it's the former, refer to my previous post about exceptions to rules (as well as not usually being accurate in our predictions of behavior). If it's the latter, know that you are not opposed to Kelju or or splash log my personal beliefs, but rather countless amount of research and data. The bystander effect is easily one of the most well accepted and studied principles of social psychology. This doesn't mean you have to be convinced of the data, but you would be hard pressed to come up with an alternative explanation

Originally Posted by DaMayor

why Doughnut Hole is getting so snappy about the subject.

My name isn't Doughnut Hole, and you won't find motive shopping necessary. Why don't you ask me any questions you have?

Originally Posted by Crono1000

this is fine. Indeed, if we never questioned research our advances in the field would be very limited. I don't know if the problem here, though, is our understanding that such a human tendency exists or if such a tendency excuses the behavior. If you do not accept this as a human tendency I must ask why? Is it because you would not do it or do you believe that this was an isolated incident full of a-holes that just didn't give a crap. If it's the former, refer to my previous post about exceptions to rules (as well as not usually being accurate in our predictions of behavior). If it's the latter, know that you are not opposed to Kelju or or splash log my personal beliefs, but rather countless amount of research and data. The bystander effect is easily one of the most well accepted and studied principles of social psychology. This doesn't mean you have to be convinced of the data, but you would be hard pressed to come up with an alternative explanation

I don't think there is any real disagreement here, honestly. I applied a harsh conclusion to this so called "bystander effect", made a judgment of the effect as being "rank cowardice". This was a very poor choice of words and unnecessarily vicious.

The argument began when the use of the word syndrome came into play, something I didn't agree with. I think that in the moment, a choice has to be made and that choice is not the result of a deterministic string of influences. I think it's often fear, or uncertainty, or rationalization, sure. But the choice is still there.

Generally speaking, the explanations offered most certainly are good at explaining general behavior and maybe in effectively predicting what will happen if some tragic event were to take place in the future.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I don't think there is any real disagreement here, honestly. I applied a harsh conclusion to this so called "bystander effect", made a judgment of the effect as being "rank cowardice". This was a very poor choice of words and unnecessarily vicious.

The argument began when the use of the word syndrome came into play, something I didn't agree with. I think that in the moment, a choice has to be made and that choice is not the result of a deterministic string of influences. I think it's often fear, or uncertainty, or rationalization, sure. But the choice is still there.

Generally speaking, the explanations offered most certainly are good at explaining general behavior and maybe in effectively predicting what will happen if some tragic event were to take place in the future.

Well, there's certainly no disagreement then, plainly just a moderate internet enhanced misunderstanding. It's hard sometimes to interpret others' meaning/intent on a message board.

as far as being "harsh" with the subject matter, any good professor I've had has encouraged questioning data and research. The first place to start, though, is in analyzing the research method used.

I like the way people argue in here.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

I like the way people argue in here.

you got a problem, huh? You trying to pick a fight cuz u got one. Why don't you go wear some orange and blue gator

hahahahahha That actually really made me laugh.

There just seems to be a lot of hot air blowing in here and I am not talking about DaMayor's farts.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

hahahahahha That actually really made me laugh.

There just seems to be a lot of hot air blowing in here and I am not talking about DaMayor's farts.

whatcha doing on the comp on a sat night Akira? no dates tonight?

Lets just make this thread about race, I like those discussions more, all this logic is making my brain hurt.

I think it was a black neighborhood.

^ I thought so too. About it being a black neighborhood.

I think DOMS and I would agree that most white people would not do such dumb things like that!












Let the race war begin!

This happens everywhere, every race.

As a lifelong New Yorker I can say most races are very helpful.
Believe it or not Blacks have been the most helpful.

Originally Posted by tallcall

I think DOMS and I would agree that most white people would not do such dumb things like that!

Damn straight. Every time I've ever been on hand for an accident of some sort, I rushed over as did pretty much everyone else. And I don't hang out in minority neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

A good point to be made here is that after being educated, you were able to adjust your response. I don't personally feel that an education is necessary, although it most certainly is necessary in terms of optimizing the response. This does of course demonstrate the point that it was always a choice.


Whether right or wrong, this is a mode of thought that demonstrates in effect a rationalization. It's true that extemporaneously, the fear and uncertainty as a natural reaction often result in a good person doing nothing. But as it's been said, all it takes for evil to triumph is for a good person to do nothing. While the quote in question does not transfer seamlessly, its close enough.

I believe that when a person is suffering, injured, or in any kind of agony and a person "looks on" and doesn't try and help, they are responsible for making a bad choice . The response doesn't have to save them or relieve their pain, but it should demonstrate intent aligned with basic human decency. This is built on a moral belief.

I am not an arm-chair internet hero, thanks. Being aligned with praising heroic behavior and looking down at indecision isn't inherently self-righteous. As surely as I've been overlooked by people who could have helped, I've been saved by people who have given me an opportunity to keep living. It is a partisan way of looking at things to be sure, very specifically related to my own experience. But I'm not going to apologize for it.

And if the words I used were offensive or overly critical, I apologize. It was overly harsh, and I'm not perfect, so I apologize for that.

You didn't offend me. You never said anything directly at me. You were flaming splash who made a factual statement. I was pointing out that people in this thread just when apeshit because scientist coined a term for a social phenomena known as bystander affect, and then claimed that it was a shitty rationalization for what happened in the story.

It kind of sounds like the "spiral of silence" phenomena I studied about in my communications classes. Basically where you see or hear about something then wait until others respond because you fear being the only opposing voice, which sucks everyone into this spiral since the average person just wants to be in agreement with those around him (not stir up the pot any).

I guess it's not quite the same as here, but it might have the same psychological influences. Just a thought.

In my classes we borrowed our theoretical framework almost exclusively from sociology and psychology since we are interested in figuring out why people think the way they do about the media and how they are using the media to fulfill whatever needs or wants they may have.

Originally Posted by Splash Log

Don't know why everyone is so surprised. Its rather common I think its called the bystander effect/genoves syndrome, something like that. Look it up and the lady its named after. Too lazy and tired to explain.

Smart man - research Kitty Genovese for a paralleling situation. It also has to do with the social psychology concept of 'diffusion of responsibility.'