I am a survivor of child abuse where no one wanted to get involved. I have "gotten involved" many many times. It drives my passive husband crazy. But I will never ignore any person in danger. If you see something say something. I will never ignore someone in need. Be the change.
I think it has a bunch to do with being shy too. Especially in a world of trolls. If you're the only chance for someone you don't care. You DO care when a peanut gallery is going to judge your every move :(
I was beaten by a mugger in the vestibule of my building years ago (NYC, where else). It was rush hour and several people passed by, looked in and heard my screams, kept walking and didn't even call 911.
I've seen this happen. There was a person who had trouble getting up at a bus terminal. At first no one including myself went to help him, but one woman ran to help him out and all of a sudden everyone ran to help him, including me, lol.
I had the exact same thing happen to me in London a few years ago. I saw an orthodox jewish man sleeping on a row of seats, and I saw flights leaving for New York and Tel Aviv. I took a chance, and woke up him, also feeling nervous about getting it wrong. The guy was sleeping really, really hard. I had to almost shake him awake. But he was super happy and super thankful.
When one person acts, due to Informational Social Influence, then others also help. That is because, in emergency situations, we look to others to see what we should do. When no one does anything, we do nothing. When someone acts, we feel that they have more information, so we act along with them. All of these theories work together to explain both when we do and when we do not help.
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through. Sad, huh?
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through. Sad, huh?
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through.
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work to avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through.
I remember being at Charing Cross station in London and a man in a suit looked like he had dropped down dead, and people on the concourse were ignoring him. I couldn't believe it. Lots of men ignoring fellow men. I contacted the emergency services immediately. I must admit I was too squeamish for anything else but I did something
On another situation I was walking in the UK there was a lost dog. It was crossing the road by itself. This was dangerous for the drivers and dog. None of the drivers helped. I had no lead. In the end I managed to borrow a lead from a neighbour and the dog had a tag and I returned the dog within 15 mins. She had been looking for the dog for 2 hours and I think it was on its way to its old home. How come we do something about, and no one else does. I now carry a dog lead in my rucksack.
Good speach, but you slightly misrepresented the Bystander effect. It is completely real, it is what they say it is, and it does blur responsibility. It just doesn't do it because of "crowds are evil". It's all based on the belonging of a group. The great majority of people feel much safer when they are backed up by a group, they need to feel they "fit", even if that means fitting in something bad. When nobody helps, they are unsure of the situation and afraid of making a fool of themselves if they stood up; while at the same time feel the protection the crowd gives them as an anonymous individual. When other person helps, then they see that can be done, that it's not ridiculous, that the person really needs help. The bystander effect is a product of the evolutionary biology of our brain. It's not created by society. It's in our human nature. It cannot be eliminated. But it can be reduced and controlled. When you know something, you gain power over it. The more you are aware, the more power you gain. The first thing we need to do if you want to fight the bystander effect is recognize it. At every moment. And then we need to teach ourselves and our kids to lose the fear of standing out. To lose the fear of making a fool, of being rejected, of stranger's opinions, of "doing the inappropiate". To be confident in our own value and do what we truly think it's right, because we truly think it's right to do it. When we managed to do that with every cognitive bias, we'll have become more than "just apes". More than humans. We'll be... the best we can be. Is that an utopia? There's only one way to find out :)
+Egret Zhars Your second paragraph is truly wisdom. Indeed, the bystander effect is not limited to humans, every animal possesses it. It is a basic instinct necessary for individual survival in the wild. But we do not live in the wild anymore. We don't need to be vary of lions creeping in the grass. And as you say, if we are aware, we gain power and control over ourselves and we escape the shackles of our instincts.
Thanks for the talk. I wonder if this result might be applicable to negative situation, for instance, when there's a lot of properties left unchecked on the table in the crowded room, and one person starts to take the money, everyone will follow and do the same. And then we can generalize that people sometimes don't know what is right or wrong, and they start looking at other people for justification.
it depends on the influence that person has on the bystanders and whether he wants to use it and what the stakes involved are. ultimately, this acting is just advertising... and the entire research is skewed by activists and their romantic ideals. let's just say where they rule, on campuses, in schools and main stream media, bullying with witnesses is rife like nowhere else.
I always think if I cant help I dont aproach, if there are other people with phones already calling the police I think is best to give the person some space. As for someone asking for help and no one helping there is some wait time to see if is not someone trying to trick you, I've been tricked a good amount of times,is awful that people take advantage of people trying to be nice.
Years ago, I was on a crowded corner in Downtown Los Angeles, waiting at the crosswalk. Across the street, I saw a little old lady collapse onto the ground. Immediately, people came rushing to help. A few people even ran across the street to get to her. By the time the light changed, there had to have been six or seven people gathered around this woman. I was an edgy teenager at the time, and it really made me stop to reconsider what I'd learned about the bystander effect.
You can be intoxicated and still be innocent, dude. If I saw someone stumble out of a bar and immediately crack their head on the pavement, I'd still want to see if they were okay.
We are socialized to look for a leader in large groups. I look at the Bystander Effect it from a leadership principle. In smaller groups communication is made more possible and thus action can be taken more quickly. One individual has no need of a leader and can intervene readily.
Cialdini's idea is to get rid of diffusion of responsibility by placing the responsibility by directly on one person by directly identifying them. This is not at odds with the original idea of diffusion of responsibility/bystander effect.
I think the problems stems from fear of being tricked - if no one is helping we think "why is no one else helping? Perhaps it's for a good reason. Perhaps this is a trick that others know to avoid"
+VideoSunshine but when you pass across a person being beaten by other person, you would know that interfering would be a terrible idea if you can't physically handle it (meaning you risk being beaten up as well). at the very least people would consider it as huge time waste even if it's really not. interesting part is that if you know what really is going on and you think that it would be better to help in the long run (for instance to affect crowd mentality with example), but can't handle it alone, then you could try involve bystander. but then that bystander might hesitate for the reason you stated "what if it's some trick/scam?". that's why it's all so hard, it wouldn't be a problem if people would know each other. but there's too much people to know everyone, only some celebrity would have privilege of trust as if he knows everyone.
@@bananian that still involves willingness to get involved in something that is "none of your business" and thus expend effort for the sake of others (might lead to questionings later, ...), which many people in our society do not see as a desirable value
@@conalmcainsh4956 that is only if we assume other present people to be better suited to handling the situation than we are, and even then there are options that bypass our perceived incompetence, like calling 911 or asking another bystander for their help in addressing the situation
No surprise that the New York Times mislead in the 1960s. It is somewhat surprising that it took citizen access to publishing platforms to widely expose how the notorious eminence greiz operates. That's why Ken Brown can expect some of his audience to be aware of how the organization operates. BTW, I am a former daily newspaper reporter.
To be correct, if you hear a sound coming from the room and smell a strong smoke, no matter who it is, you should be inform the person in charge of the department instead, not just sitting there and waiting...
keeping her idly stood by during the rest of the presentation just to flip a couple slides was unnecessary and annoying. Other than that, I liked the presentation overall and specially the airport experience. Small experiences, huge lessons.
If the gentleman at the airport that you awoken would’ve become irate and punched your lights out, I’m certain a different conclusion about ‘living in uncertainty’ would’ve been reached! Just sayin.
people did yell out their window (like 1) and there was a few people trying to call but chickened out. If they called before the murder she would've lived.
I think he misconstrued the theory behind the Bystander effect. Nothing about it is wrong. The larger the crowd, the more likely people will follow others actions. They are more likely to not help if someone does not. That's technically the theory. The effect doesn't state that no one will help, but rather that the more people there are, the less likely you are to receive help. Once someone does assist, then that's no longer the same thing since it's already beyond the theory. That's when people start to muster up the courage to "assist" others due to another influence. Also, directly asking someone, is completely different, since you are specifically calling to them like he did with the young lady. I think he's just misinterpreting the theory, and from what I understand he's not really a psychologist either.
contradictory - explains Kitty Genovese story is inflated and that some people did help though no one directly aided. Yet, he goes on to claim that it just takes one helper to create an opposing effect he claimed was "helper effect". So, why did this not occur for Kitty if his claims of help are actually fact?
I saved a life when I realized that no one was doing anything. There were kids swimming in the river and one was drowning. I waited for a minute for the kayakers to do something, but they are useless selfish jerks. It happens when you buy a boat, the bigger the boat, the worse the indifference. Case and point, Cruise lines traveling by poverty stricken desperate situations and they just keep going....
The person calling out for help because they're in pain is NOT an example of the bystander effect, but a lack of empathy on the part of the bystanders. The bystander effect only applies to more ambiguous situations. For example, if we're faced with a situation where it's unclear if it's an emergency or not, we will look to others for cues on how to proceed.
I think it's a interesting view about the bystander effect that, at first, gave us hope. But I think if you think more about it is more terrifying yeat than before. First because you realize humanity is just a slave of mass efecct and second beacuse, as he said, if JUST ONE person helping or a small group engaging in a good initiative could mobilize others to follow maybe also JUST ONE PERSON OR SMALL GROUP could encouraging others to follow the atrocity in some kind of mob effect. He gaves us the example of Luther King, what's inpirational. But maybe the aderence on ISIS follow some way the same pattern. If there's a small group of people doing cruel things maybe others that will not has the courage to initiate the barbarie join the group, as in lynching cases.
He basiclly said that if one person among the crowd initiate, for example, to stop someone to be lynching others tend to join to sotp the lynching. BUT he assume that we "naturally tend" to initiate a good action. If this "first person" of the crowd initiate to HELP the lynching others maybe also tend to join the first person also in this case.
[1:19] this shows how terrible the Judiciary system is worldwide. People do not turst the adminstration and autorities. They want to avoid the hassle of going throw the court trial
So in the worst case scenario of the other participants being instructed to not help: 1 person: 80% chance of helping 2 people: 60% chance of helping 5 people: 30% chance of helping Sounds pretty dire, until you remember 2x60% is 120% and 5x30% is 150%, so the more people there are the higher the likelihood of the victim being helped, not lower.
your point is correct, if 1 person has a 30% chance to help in a group of 5, then in real life where the other 4 haven't been instructed to do nothing, there would be a higher chance someone would help. your maths is wrong though, it wouldn't be a 150% of someone helping, that's impossible. there's be a roughly 83% chance at least one would help, and a 17% chance no one would help.
+gazm2k5 Except the statistics are on the group of people, not on a single one. 1 person : 80% chance of helping 2 people : 60% chance that ONE OF THEM helps... Etc... But i may be wrong, english is not my native language, i may have misunderstood what he said.
So rather than talk to me, you talk to others about me….Jedi say this, khan say that. Now I don’t want to talk to you or anyone that knows you. Stop hacking me.
I am a survivor of child abuse where no one wanted to get involved. I have "gotten involved" many many times. It drives my passive husband crazy. But I will never ignore any person in danger. If you see something say something. I will never ignore someone in need. Be the change.
I am a very broken person but this is what I do because I cant go back an help myself as a little girl, but I can help others now.
Be the change...yes! Thank you.
This is true, even in active shooter situations. If one person resists, others join in to help, as was seen in the Paris train shooting.
Also true in MOBA games involving team effort, lol.
I think it has a bunch to do with being shy too. Especially in a world of trolls.
If you're the only chance for someone you don't care. You DO care when a peanut gallery is going to judge your every move :(
I was beaten by a mugger in the vestibule of my building years ago (NYC, where else). It was rush hour and several people passed by, looked in and heard my screams, kept walking and didn't even call 911.
That's so horrible. I'm so sorry that happened to you
I'm very sorry, I hope you're well now.
I've seen this happen. There was a person who had trouble getting up at a bus terminal. At first no one including myself went to help him, but one woman ran to help him out and all of a sudden everyone ran to help him, including me, lol.
bananian It’s so awkward being the first one. I wish we weren’t like that but I guess in the end we all have that selfish part of us.
James Mitchell
Avila
I had the exact same thing happen to me in London a few years ago. I saw an orthodox jewish man sleeping on a row of seats, and I saw flights leaving for New York and Tel Aviv. I took a chance, and woke up him, also feeling nervous about getting it wrong. The guy was sleeping really, really hard. I had to almost shake him awake. But he was super happy and super thankful.
When one person acts, due to Informational Social Influence, then others also help. That is because, in emergency situations, we look to others to see what we should do. When no one does anything, we do nothing. When someone acts, we feel that they have more information, so we act along with them. All of these theories work together to explain both when we do and when we do not help.
+Nancy A Sure, in other words most people are sheeple that can't or won't think for themselves.
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through. Sad, huh?
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through. Sad, huh?
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work tho avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through.
Unless we are aware of social influence and actively work to avoid it. The problem is that much of cognition, especially the initial thoughts, are automatic and heuristic driven. So even when we want to avoid ISI, and are motivated to engage in conscious thought, we may not successfully follow through.
This reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell book: "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference".
exactly
WOW! Ken explained this so thoughtfully
Conclusion: He's an optimist.
I remember being at Charing Cross station in London and a man in a suit looked like he had dropped down dead, and people on the concourse were ignoring him. I couldn't believe it. Lots of men ignoring fellow men. I contacted the emergency services immediately. I must admit I was too squeamish for anything else but I did something
Thank you very much! 🌿
Nice speech! I'll keep in mind the way how major movements begin to join and do something positive and beneficial for people.
On another situation I was walking in the UK there was a lost dog. It was crossing the road by itself. This was dangerous for the drivers and dog. None of the drivers helped. I had no lead. In the end I managed to borrow a lead from a neighbour and the dog had a tag and I returned the dog within 15 mins. She had been looking for the dog for 2 hours and I think it was on its way to its old home. How come we do something about, and no one else does. I now carry a dog lead in my rucksack.
Good speach, but you slightly misrepresented the Bystander effect. It is completely real, it is what they say it is, and it does blur responsibility. It just doesn't do it because of "crowds are evil". It's all based on the belonging of a group. The great majority of people feel much safer when they are backed up by a group, they need to feel they "fit", even if that means fitting in something bad. When nobody helps, they are unsure of the situation and afraid of making a fool of themselves if they stood up; while at the same time feel the protection the crowd gives them as an anonymous individual. When other person helps, then they see that can be done, that it's not ridiculous, that the person really needs help.
The bystander effect is a product of the evolutionary biology of our brain. It's not created by society. It's in our human nature. It cannot be eliminated. But it can be reduced and controlled. When you know something, you gain power over it. The more you are aware, the more power you gain. The first thing we need to do if you want to fight the bystander effect is recognize it. At every moment. And then we need to teach ourselves and our kids to lose the fear of standing out. To lose the fear of making a fool, of being rejected, of stranger's opinions, of "doing the inappropiate". To be confident in our own value and do what we truly think it's right, because we truly think it's right to do it.
When we managed to do that with every cognitive bias, we'll have become more than "just apes". More than humans. We'll be... the best we can be. Is that an utopia? There's only one way to find out :)
+Egret Zhars
Your second paragraph is truly wisdom. Indeed, the bystander effect is not limited to humans, every animal possesses it. It is a basic instinct necessary for individual survival in the wild. But we do not live in the wild anymore. We don't need to be vary of lions creeping in the grass. And as you say, if we are aware, we gain power and control over ourselves and we escape the shackles of our instincts.
FoxxyCZ you do not think we live in the wild?
He covers exactly those points. Your cognitive bias makes you feel a need to be correct and thus others incorrect.
Should it be re-named the "group effect" as opposed to the Bystander effect. Mr. Brown does show data to support such a case.
Should rename New York city effect
I'm sorry but it also happens to China and it is much worse
Cat of Truth What’s happened there? If you don’t mind explaining it to me so I don’t have to take the extra time googling it 😜
The bystander effect occurs in other large cities.
As a native new yorker, this is facts.
Was a very good Talk and i learned something new and valuable . Thanks !!!
Thanks for the talk.
I wonder if this result might be applicable to negative situation, for instance, when there's a lot of properties left unchecked on the table in the crowded room, and one person starts to take the money, everyone will follow and do the same.
And then we can generalize that people sometimes don't know what is right or wrong, and they start looking at other people for justification.
interesting theory - could possibly tie in with the momentum of behaviour during a riot
it depends on the influence that person has on the bystanders and whether he wants to use it and what the stakes involved are. ultimately, this acting is just advertising... and the entire research is skewed by activists and their romantic ideals. let's just say where they rule, on campuses, in schools and main stream media, bullying with witnesses is rife like nowhere else.
I always think if I cant help I dont aproach, if there are other people with phones already calling the police I think is best to give the person some space. As for someone asking for help and no one helping there is some wait time to see if is not someone trying to trick you, I've been tricked a good amount of times,is awful that people take advantage of people trying to be nice.
yes, I know what you mean, that's being streetwise. It really doesn't help when there are so many criminals around,
Exactly.
Years ago, I was on a crowded corner in Downtown Los Angeles, waiting at the crosswalk. Across the street, I saw a little old lady collapse onto the ground. Immediately, people came rushing to help. A few people even ran across the street to get to her. By the time the light changed, there had to have been six or seven people gathered around this woman. I was an edgy teenager at the time, and it really made me stop to reconsider what I'd learned about the bystander effect.
You can be intoxicated and still be innocent, dude. If I saw someone stumble out of a bar and immediately crack their head on the pavement, I'd still want to see if they were okay.
Such a good ted talk! Thanks Ken!
We are socialized to look for a leader in large groups. I look at the Bystander Effect it from a leadership principle. In smaller groups communication is made more possible and thus action can be taken more quickly. One individual has no need of a leader and can intervene readily.
Cialdini's idea is to get rid of diffusion of responsibility by placing the responsibility by directly on one person by directly identifying them. This is not at odds with the original idea of diffusion of responsibility/bystander effect.
I think the problems stems from fear of being tricked - if no one is helping we think "why is no one else helping? Perhaps it's for a good reason. Perhaps this is a trick that others know to avoid"
+VideoSunshine but when you pass across a person being beaten by other person, you would know that interfering would be a terrible idea if you can't physically handle it (meaning you risk being beaten up as well). at the very least people would consider it as huge time waste even if it's really not.
interesting part is that if you know what really is going on and you think that it would be better to help in the long run (for instance to affect crowd mentality with example), but can't handle it alone, then you could try involve bystander. but then that bystander might hesitate for the reason you stated "what if it's some trick/scam?". that's why it's all so hard, it wouldn't be a problem if people would know each other. but there's too much people to know everyone, only some celebrity would have privilege of trust as if he knows everyone.
you could still call the police so it's not an excuse to walk away.
Informational social influence teaches us that we often see others as the experts and do as they do.
@@bananian that still involves willingness to get involved in something that is "none of your business" and thus expend effort for the sake of others (might lead to questionings later, ...), which many people in our society do not see as a desirable value
@@conalmcainsh4956 that is only if we assume other present people to be better suited to handling the situation than we are, and even then there are options that bypass our perceived incompetence, like calling 911 or asking another bystander for their help in addressing the situation
Rather ponderous.
No surprise that the New York Times mislead in the 1960s. It is somewhat surprising that it took citizen access to publishing platforms to widely expose how the notorious eminence greiz operates. That's why Ken Brown can expect some of his audience to be aware of how the organization operates. BTW, I am a former daily newspaper reporter.
This is true in online communities where people post questions and nobody answers.
CPR And First Aid I would feel more inclined to help further.
How drunk are the camera operators?
Maybe they'd been to a spiritual retreat and praying for 24 hours and couldn't stay awake.
what really creeps me out is how many people who speak about this phenomenon don't know the bystander effect at all.
I stand corrected, looks like we only need one to help...note to self
To be correct, if you hear a sound coming from the room and smell a strong smoke, no matter who it is, you should be inform the person in charge of the department instead, not just sitting there and waiting...
keeping her idly stood by during the rest of the presentation just to flip a couple slides was unnecessary and annoying. Other than that, I liked the presentation overall and specially the airport experience. Small experiences, huge lessons.
Yeah, he showed a remarkable condescension to the audience member he called up.
it's not complicated at all... I stop, why can't anybody else..
Vegan gangsta you’re a good non conforming person. I try to help when I can.
I swear to god that if I hear him say "Let me share their results" once more, I'll have a stroke...
But will anyone else in the comments call for help?
@@demoniack81 You... I like you...
If the gentleman at the airport that you awoken would’ve become irate and punched your lights out, I’m certain a different conclusion about ‘living in uncertainty’ would’ve been reached! Just sayin.
people did yell out their window (like 1) and there was a few people trying to call but chickened out. If they called before the murder she would've lived.
I think he misconstrued the theory behind the Bystander effect. Nothing about it is wrong. The larger the crowd, the more likely people will follow others actions. They are more likely to not help if someone does not. That's technically the theory. The effect doesn't state that no one will help, but rather that the more people there are, the less likely you are to receive help. Once someone does assist, then that's no longer the same thing since it's already beyond the theory. That's when people start to muster up the courage to "assist" others due to another influence. Also, directly asking someone, is completely different, since you are specifically calling to them like he did with the young lady. I think he's just misinterpreting the theory, and from what I understand he's not really a psychologist either.
+Yevgenious Sosnowski
Did you watch the video? Is English your main language?
wtf why is it important if english is his main language he still could get the content if not
contradictory - explains Kitty Genovese story is inflated and that some people did help though no one directly aided. Yet, he goes on to claim that it just takes one helper to create an opposing effect he claimed was "helper effect". So, why did this not occur for Kitty if his claims of help are actually fact?
Because there was a murderer actively commiting murder with a dangerous weapon.
first, see below. second, I suspect that there was an opportunity to shout out a window without endangering oneself@@WillTFB
I once helped a blind family of four cross the street cept it was the wrong street. They weren't happy.
I see it in Law and Order SVU.
sammypop 41 Witnesses.
That would definitely happen unfortunately
I saved a life when I realized that no one was doing anything. There were kids swimming in the river and one was drowning. I waited for a minute for the kayakers to do something, but they are useless selfish jerks. It happens when you buy a boat, the bigger the boat, the worse the indifference. Case and point, Cruise lines traveling by poverty stricken desperate situations and they just keep going....
الأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر كفيل بحل هذه المشكلة
The person calling out for help because they're in pain is NOT an example of the bystander effect, but a lack of empathy on the part of the bystanders. The bystander effect only applies to more ambiguous situations. For example, if we're faced with a situation where it's unclear if it's an emergency or not, we will look to others for cues on how to proceed.
Why does this dude remind me of Mr Jefferson from Life is Strange
OMG YES
I think it's a interesting view about the bystander effect that, at first, gave us hope. But I think if you think more about it is more terrifying yeat than before. First because you realize humanity is just a slave of mass efecct and second beacuse, as he said, if JUST ONE person helping or a small group engaging in a good initiative could mobilize others to follow maybe also JUST ONE PERSON OR SMALL GROUP could encouraging others to follow the atrocity in some kind of mob effect. He gaves us the example of Luther King, what's inpirational. But maybe the aderence on ISIS follow some way the same pattern. If there's a small group of people doing cruel things maybe others that will not has the courage to initiate the barbarie join the group, as in lynching cases.
He basiclly said that if one person among the crowd initiate, for example, to stop someone to be lynching others tend to join to sotp the lynching. BUT he assume that we "naturally tend" to initiate a good action. If this "first person" of the crowd initiate to HELP the lynching others maybe also tend to join the first person also in this case.
I kinda think he strayed off the subject but had some good info
So, it is similar to the Bandwagon Effect
his challenge to the bystander effect is disenguous "when one person helps" assumes what he had to prove--how often does one person help?
[1:19] this shows how terrible the Judiciary system is worldwide. People do not turst the adminstration and autorities. They want to avoid the hassle of going throw the court trial
I saw a crowd gathered around a man bashing a woman, and I ran in to restrain him - not one of the fifty-plus crowd helped.
I got more from the comments then this video.
This is the positive spin on mob psychology.
I was enjoying it until he kept on asking the lady to flip the slides 😩
Yea I was waiting for him to make a point about even asking her to "help" in the first place but he never did, lmao.
yes me too. he didn’t even said please or something
He has some good ideas ...but he’s a little bit confused, mixed up different subjects
So in the worst case scenario of the other participants being instructed to not help:
1 person: 80% chance of helping
2 people: 60% chance of helping
5 people: 30% chance of helping
Sounds pretty dire, until you remember 2x60% is 120% and 5x30% is 150%, so the more people there are the higher the likelihood of the victim being helped, not lower.
your point is correct, if 1 person has a 30% chance to help in a group of 5, then in real life where the other 4 haven't been instructed to do nothing, there would be a higher chance someone would help. your maths is wrong though, it wouldn't be a 150% of someone helping, that's impossible. there's be a roughly 83% chance at least one would help, and a 17% chance no one would help.
+gazm2k5 Except the statistics are on the group of people, not on a single one.
1 person : 80% chance of helping
2 people : 60% chance that ONE OF THEM helps...
Etc...
But i may be wrong, english is not my native language, i may have misunderstood what he said.
No, he said only one person in the group was a subject. The others were all planted and instructed not to do anything.
Ok, thanks for correcting me !
+Seth K He means overall chances, not cumulative. @ 3:26
So rather than talk to me, you talk to others about me….Jedi say this, khan say that.
Now I don’t want to talk to you or anyone that knows you. Stop hacking me.
Talk faster please!
+Joris Weima
Stop drinking Red Bull, please.
Clembo hahah. It's genetic Red Bull, unfortunately. Or maybe I fell into a big pot of that stuff as a kid.
I recommend speeding it up.
hahaa good one! It's a lot better at 1.25x speed ;)
Imagine a higher intelligence intentionally preventing itself from assisting simply because it's common place
Hi can anybody help me please?....please...I need a 2000 assignment writing in 2 days?...anyone?
The title should be called 'Much of What Ken Brown Knows About Bystander Effect Is Wrong (really just Social Psychology in general).
Google him, appears that he has no background in Psychology.
So what?
He has a PhD in psychology and teaches at the University of Iowa.
any1 here for an ap psych assignment
Really, the presenter just had a baby or grand baby and wants the world so wonderful. A sad Ted talk, weak men make for hard times.....
men who have many wives are most likely to go without food days wife A thinks Wife B prepared the meals blabla