15 / 29
May 2019

post withdrawn happy now? though is had freedom of speech but oh wait that's just a fantasy in this world now.

Don't tell people what they should say, and what they shouldn't, please. :thumbsdown: You can't just shut up everyone who says what you don't like in a PUBLIC forum. This forum is not yours, this thread is not yours. Its not only for you, but for all people to speak what they think.

P.S. I was in abusive relationships with one guy for a several years, and all my fucking family was abusive, too. And I didn't "scream to the void" when I read his comment. I don't completely agree with his comment, but he had a point and he had a right to say what he think anyway, even if YOU don't like it.

unless someone needs my immediate help or wants my help, I just call professionals to deal with these issues instead. I'm not really qualified to help most people in most serious situations, and doing so could in many ways cause more harm than help (which could even result in getting sued later on).

But also, I think the biggest reason I probably don't do anything in most of these scenarios is I honestly am too unobservant to notice things happening to other strangers when I'm out and about. Like unless you are making a big scene, I probably will walk by and never be any the wiser that you're having an issue.

thanks for the support. and i realise what i said was harsh but the truth can be. as for abusive relationships, I should know what i'm talking about having being not only a victim of my parents bomb of a marriage and a six year victim of my own relationship with a compulsive liar and a thief and yes love was the reason I put up with that crap. I have good reason to speak as I do about so called love, it's nothing but a virus that messes up your brain.

I would rather say, that love by itself is not bad, but only if it's controlled by intellect; particularly, if you don't give your love to those who doesn't value it anyway. At least, it's how I personally see it.

Anyway, I think that abusive relationships are very complicated subject by themselves (and they actually require the distinct topic to discuss them properly). Particularly, their tragedy is that the victim often don't understand that they are abused (for example, because they don't realise that better kind of relationships are possible for them). In this case, bystander can't help.
From my experience, this mindset can be defeated only by going through other, respective and kind, and in the same time long and serious relationships (not necessarily romantic; friendly relationships are helpful, too). It can't be defeated at once; it's a long and complicated process.
In my opinion, all what the bystander can do for a victim of such a sad situation, is call the police, if their life is under direct threat (for example, if the abusive person has a weapon). But if the victim doesn't want to be saved and covers up their offender, there is nothing to do at all.... (at least, if you aren't their close friend and don't want to invest an incredible amount of time and efforts to help them to change their mindset and rethink their life.)

I'm the type to run to help, but... I don't necessarily think it's a good thing either. I have no training, I'm pretty impulsive and I can potentially make things worse. I know I'm not the best candidate to help, but because I have little trust in humans, I have the tendency to think that if I don't do it no one will.
I have never been in a very bad, immediate danger situation, but helping with people getting harrassed or threatened, yes. But it's risky for everyone because I don't really know what I'm doing.

I do think unless there is immediate danger the best is to call for help, professional if possible.

Dude, even just doing that is doing a lot. A lot of people affected by the bystander effect can't even bring themselves to call 911, because that would mean 'getting involved'.

Some people might expect more from you, but tbh I don't think that's fair either. It's understandable to not want to risk life and limb to help people who are in trouble, that's why so many societies create police forces and emergency responders who are trained to get into those situations.

Daily reminder that freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences. If private citizens disagree with you or dislike your statements, that does NOT mean you are being censored; there is no law that guarantees you the right to have your opinions accepted by others.

@mariusthered
Freedom of speech means that the government can't harm you for anything you're saying. It doesn't protect you from other people disagreeing with you and appealing to you to be more considerate towards others. Which I did. Or, well, tried to do, which apparently was misunderstood. But it was nothing more.

@tired_programmer
If this forum belongs to all of us (which it does lol), you will have to live with people disagreeing with you, as well, just as you said yourself. "Please don't say potentially harmful things" is a request, not me trying to shut someone up. Apologies if that came across as if I were trying to assert dominance. ^^

I recognize that my statement was a bit broad as well, but I stand by the message. Why be so harsh on people who already suffer? Why not be more considerate what your words could do to others? That was the only goal of my post, not policing your opinion about love in general, mariustheread.

I simply misread the bit about "you're better off alone" as being targeted at the person you were trying to help that day, which then would've been disrespectful toward her, you know? That you were talking about yourself was only clear to me in later posts you made here. And that is an opinion I won't challenge, because it's deeply personal what each of us thinks of love.

I think that should clear things up.


Other than that: Never endanger yourself if you can help it! I haven't read nearly as much about the bystander effect as I'd like to, but I suspect that that's part of the reason so many people could struggle with actively helping (even just calling the police). Sure, the shared responsibility is a HUGE factor, but when I think about the fear of hurting oneself? I think that at least takes second place. I remember stepping between an aggressor and a friend of mine, and I almost sh*t my pants. :sweat_smile:

It went well in the end, but that's not always the case. So as long as you don't think you can handle the situation in front of you, every step could be one too much. Especially since:

As laypersons, it might impede any chance of a situation being calmed down, even—be it psychologically or when people get physical. Most of us aren't trained to de-escalate things like these. Professionals are always our best bet if we can trust them to do their job right.

But I do wonder how we can really break through this bystander effect. I mean, as you're saying, @DokiDokiTsuna, most people don't even call for help. Do you think that's a modern phenomenon? You know, with more people around, no close-knit communities etc.? I wonder.

Short answer: Nah.

Long answer: Psychology is a modern science, so technically it's not possible to be sure. ^^; But I would be highly skeptical of writing it off as merely a modern phenomenon.

There's a difference between helping out a total stranger and helping a member of your "close-knit community"; the bystander effect only concerns strangers or people you don't know very well (if you'd look away as a loved one died in the street, that's something else entirely...). Although, the fact that we have bigger cities now certainly helps to nurture the bystander effect: there's almost ALWAYS someone else around to shift responsibility to.

But if the bystander effect wasn't a thing in older societies, why did beggars and street children and poor widows exist? Shouldn't they have been helped and taken care of by the people who surely witnessed them living their lives in the gutters?
On the contrary, I think the parable of 'The Good Samaritan', and other stories like it, existed back then for a reason. ;]

I think is because at this point the society was big enough for people to not know everyone. Some travelling facilities like carriages allowed people to go from a city to another. They even organized caravans to travel more safely which means more people fluctuating. Definitively not as much as nowadays, but big enough for people not knowing everyone.

Also, unfortunately, people may not know these people, so there is not enough trust to help in that way. Maybe with a coin or two, something that may not be risky for the helper.

You both raise good points. xD

Maybe "modern" should be used as a broader term, then? Or better yet: big civilizations? I doubt that in Ancient Rome people were more amenable to help out strangers than in today's society, for example.

But smaller communities? Take modern indigenous peoples, for example. If the colonizing west hasn't reached them yet, they mostly seem to be working just fine with each other, having a real sense of responsibility when it comes to the community as a whole (or nature, for that matter).

I think we could learn so much from them. Maybe even in terms of the bystander effect.

I have saved someone before, but in a pretty crazy way. Basically I had to pull a machete on someone. It was alight though, I didn't get arrested, but I see what you mean. Many times we like to think we'll make the difference but when the time comes we only wait for others to do it.

I wonder if there is a correlation between higher population and the chance to become a part of the bystander effect.

I live in a small town (largest in the county in land but smallest in population) and recently at my job at the library we had to deal with a mentality unstable man. I had no problems calming him down as I have experience with mentally disturbed individuals. (Family and otherwise) However my coworker was shaking in her boots and not handling it well, I step in front of her and handled the man. He was yelling and upset so one of our patrons came up to the desk to put a book on hold. He could have done that from any computer himself but he came up to be sure the three little Librarians didn’t need help. Thankfully we didn’t, but it was kind of him to find an excuse to be close by when the situation was escalating.

I think in a small town people are more likely to step in, because there is a higher chance they know you and care about you. So maybe the solution to this effect is to get to know your neighbors. Obviously you can’t know everyone but it might help.

Unfortunately I'm a coward too and highly affected by the bystander effect. Even if I decide to help, it's mostly small things and only if the person in trouble calls for it. Like a poor woman who slipped and got stucked in the mud and was yelling for help but everyone ignored her. I'm small and weak but somehow managed to get her out. It really wasn't a big thing.

Otherwise, I freak out very easily and get shocked or even start crying (I'm useless). I also had a scary experience before and because of that I easily get scared of people (especially older men). I want to keep the topic SFW so won't go into details but long story short, 12-years-old me was walking home late at night on a quiet and dark path next to a stream I knew very well. I've heard dog barking in the distance and then a pedophile came to me and asked me to find his dog. Near the stream it was slippery and hard to climb back, so I agreed to go down looking for the dog but couldn't find it. The man said it's fine and I should get back up but then he started acting strangely and I had to see something I was not prepared for. Thankfully, I was lucky, I used to be a fast-runner at those times so I could escape easily. My parents didn't believe my story though, so nothing happened after that.

But anyway, this memory also affects how I react if I see someone in need of help. It's easier to help girls like me and as the person in trouble gets older I feel more and more useless and scared to get involved. I know it's not a good thing but can't help it.

I liked your story Ace, but it doesn't really apply here. The Bystander Effect is all about groups of people. You were alone when you found somebody hiding in your yard.

Are you an asshole, @SilentHamster102 ? Maybe, I don't know you. At least you are honest.

Folks, I would not get involved in most of the scenarios given here as examples. I am a licensed security guard, and yeah, I would stand down.

It's like this. Firstly, actual conflicts of one-sided distress are as rare as winning lottery tickets. Much more frequently, one or both sides is presenting a biased story of the event which was more of a fight than an unprovoked assault. Evidence: when I ask a self-described victim to look at the video with me, the victim always changes a tune and makes an excuse to drop and leave. If some harassment happens which has every indication of being one-sided victimization, I will still take a few seconds of pause to determine that.

Secondly, the law os EXTREMELY limiting in what I am allowed to do. Even in cases of breaking and entering into a business that I am guarding, all my state government allows me to is call the police and ask the burglar to remain in place until the police arrive. If someone attacks me with violence, I am permitted with respond with only the amount of violence which is proportional and appropriate. Even doing that is likely to result with me in court as thr defendant.

Third, if I do insert myself into a violent situation, I am probably not improving that situation. More likely, I am escalating the violence and making everything worse. Yeah, I want to be the action hero who takes down thenbad guy, but I inderstand that it's better to be the unsung hero who serves for years and never had need to draw blood once.

You make a lot of good points, but I feel like I have to take issue with this statement:

I wouldn't say it's THAT rare. Only a tiny percentage of the population has ever won the lottery. But ask any roomful of adults if they've ever been harassed or attacked by a complete stranger, and you can reasonably expect at least a third of the hands in the room to go up...especially if it's a roomful of women (or retail workers...'_').

I understand the importance of gauging situations correctly, especially when it's part of your job. But going around with the assumption that the majority of people who have trouble in public brought it on themselves is just naivete on the other extreme.

There are plenty of reasons why a given victim wouldn't want to take the time/effort to go over security footage and/or press charges (people have written entire essays on the subject...); to assume it's only because what happened to them 'was probably partly their fault' is, at best, not very nice. =/

sometimes, if the event was too traumatic, it could be because they don`t want to feel that pain again. Of course, you are seeing the footages, so you can discern after watching a couple of times how biased is the info of the person.

if i knew you were a security guard i would have interviewed you for a university project i had XD

That`s true. For what i learned, security guards are there to have the full info of who gets in, who gets out and to report anything suspicious. Also, if it is similar to my country they dont get any kind of weapon to defend themselves (please correct me if anything here was inaccurate)

Also, i understand your situation. Any trouble with the law can cost you your current and future guard jobs.

While i agree that is way more than winning the lottery, it depends a lot of the country/city/work/socioeconomics/social circles etc.... 3 out of ten is a minority, but is still quite a lot.

considering that the total population of the world is around 7.5 billions, it would mean that 2.25 billions of persons raising the hand.

It all depends of how the problem is approached. i will quote Jenny here: