4 ms·

This article sounds like some sort of propaganda. In an emergency situation, people obviously will do extreme things.

stupidcar 8y ago
There's little reason to believe so. Minds shaped by reinforcement learning will usually fall back on established behaviours, even in novel and unexpected situations. In stable societies, these behaviours include baseline trust, respect for property, non-violence, reciprocal altruism etc. Only if exposed to different and more hostile circumstances for a longer period should we expect different behaviors to develop.
adventured 8y ago
9/11 in NY being a classic example of how that isn't what people tend to do. A wild disaster - terrorist attack - the likes of which none of those people would have ever witnessed before. A couple of the world's tallest buildings collapse. Thousands dead. The exact details of the circumstances mostly unknown, along with the continued risk. The New Yorkers that had to evacuate the greater area, post attack and collapse, proceeded to overwhelmingly behave with great calm. They didn't trample each other to death. They didn't behave crazily. They walked out of there, peacefully, covered in collapsed building dust. One of the many iconic photos of that relative calm behavior: https://i.imgur.com/EBCJm72.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EBCJm72.jpg
- anothergoogler 8y ago
  I'm not so sure, the NYC attacks didn't offer particular criminal opportunity. As for the photo, a mass stoicly crossing a bridge isn't the best supporting evidence. Cause trouble and a mob sets on you.
  - maym86 8y ago
    The point of the article is that people behave in a civil manner in a disaster and the behavior during 9/11 seemingly supports this. > Cause trouble and a mob sets on you. Do you have anything to support this statement? The original article contains links to the studies it is citing. If anyone has a serious criticism they can start here. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716205285589 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716205285589 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.5726&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453... http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/590/PP205.pdf?sequence=1 http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/590/PP205.pdf?... https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/27438961 https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/27438961
    - yosefzeev 8y ago
      Some of these are behind paywalls, and the rest are more "meta-studies" as opposed to showing some methodology that arrived at a conclusion.
- masonic 8y ago
  Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977...
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    I'd argue that's because the blackout wasn't a disaster per say, as much as a major inconvenience. A mob of bored but otherwise safe individuals is more dangerous than a mob of people in need but with a clear and sane way to fulfill that need.
maym86 8y ago
The point of the article is that your assumption, the assumption that people often make, has been measurably shown to be incorrect.
- yosefzeev 8y ago
  I can measure the size of a football field in inches, but it doesn't mean the measure is useful.
  - maym86 8y ago
    It is absolutely useful if you're trying to measure the size of a football field. What in the article precisely does your analogy refer to?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lostmyoldone 8y ago
It's true people do extreme things in extreme circumstances. It is also true in general that we are born because we are born survivors. While it might seem probable that people would seize the opportunity when you are not in a survival situation, once your brain kicks into survival mode almost nobody will think of that opportunity, not even most of those who previously ideated themselves doing the looting. There is no reason to think looting for riches during disasters is a valuable survival strategy in general, and somehow we know this without being aware of it, as is the case with a fair bit of the machinery of our mind and body that tries to keep us alive.

There's little reason to believe so. Minds shaped by reinforcement learning will usually fall back on established behaviours, even in novel and unexpected situations. In stable societies, these behaviours include baseline trust, respect for property, non-violence, reciprocal altruism etc. Only if exposed to different and more hostile circumstances for a longer period should we expect different behaviors to develop.

adventured 8y ago

9/11 in NY being a classic example of how that isn't what people tend to do. A wild disaster - terrorist attack - the likes of which none of those people would have ever witnessed before. A couple of the world's tallest buildings collapse. Thousands dead. The exact details of the circumstances mostly unknown, along with the continued risk. The New Yorkers that had to evacuate the greater area, post attack and collapse, proceeded to overwhelmingly behave with great calm. They didn't trample each other to death. They didn't behave crazily. They walked out of there, peacefully, covered in collapsed building dust. One of the many iconic photos of that relative calm behavior: https://i.imgur.com/EBCJm72.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EBCJm72.jpg

anothergoogler 8y ago
I'm not so sure, the NYC attacks didn't offer particular criminal opportunity. As for the photo, a mass stoicly crossing a bridge isn't the best supporting evidence. Cause trouble and a mob sets on you.
- maym86 8y ago
  The point of the article is that people behave in a civil manner in a disaster and the behavior during 9/11 seemingly supports this. > Cause trouble and a mob sets on you. Do you have anything to support this statement? The original article contains links to the studies it is citing. If anyone has a serious criticism they can start here. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716205285589 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716205285589 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.5726&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453... http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/590/PP205.pdf?sequence=1 http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/590/PP205.pdf?... https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/27438961 https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/27438961
  - yosefzeev 8y ago
    Some of these are behind paywalls, and the rest are more "meta-studies" as opposed to showing some methodology that arrived at a conclusion.
masonic 8y ago
Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977...
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  I'd argue that's because the blackout wasn't a disaster per say, as much as a major inconvenience. A mob of bored but otherwise safe individuals is more dangerous than a mob of people in need but with a clear and sane way to fulfill that need.

maym86 8y ago

The point of the article is that your assumption, the assumption that people often make, has been measurably shown to be incorrect.

yosefzeev 8y ago
I can measure the size of a football field in inches, but it doesn't mean the measure is useful.
- maym86 8y ago
  It is absolutely useful if you're trying to measure the size of a football field. What in the article precisely does your analogy refer to?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lostmyoldone 8y ago

It's true people do extreme things in extreme circumstances. It is also true in general that we are born because we are born survivors. While it might seem probable that people would seize the opportunity when you are not in a survival situation, once your brain kicks into survival mode almost nobody will think of that opportunity, not even most of those who previously ideated themselves doing the looting. There is no reason to think looting for riches during disasters is a valuable survival strategy in general, and somehow we know this without being aware of it, as is the case with a fair bit of the machinery of our mind and body that tries to keep us alive.