4 ms·

"Nobody went to his aid at the very beginning when he first collapsed -- that just perplexed me beyond reason," Why didn't she? Perhaps she was in the middle

by tc 16y ago

"Nobody went to his aid at the very beginning when he first collapsed -- that just perplexed me beyond reason," Why didn't she? Perhaps she was in the middle of a row. But often the reason that no one helps is that everyone is expecting someone else to do it -- someone more official or someone better located. If a person needs help, don't look around for who else is moving. Go help. -- A story, while we're on the subject: I'm eating at this sushi place with a girl when I hear a chair hit the floor. I look up, and there's this big fellow a few tables over who appears to be choking. He's with a date, but it's clear she's shocked and doesn't know what to do. As I'm sliding out of the booth to get to my feet, a guy blows past me. He must have noticed the poor fellow choking sooner, because he came flying from the bar at the other side of the restaurant. He just seemed to appear out of nowhere. He gives the big fellow the Heimlich Maneuver. The guy starts coughing after two or three hard thrusts. The rescuer makes sure the guy is OK, then disappears out the front door and into the night. The total time from him blowing past me to breezing out the front door was no more than 30 seconds. It was a terribly efficient rescue. I've always imagined he wanted out of there quickly and anonymously because of liability concerns.

peter_and 16y ago
As someone who was there (in the 3rd balcony) it was seriously shocking. As dumb as it sounds, I think some people thought it was part of his act, although when he collapsed the second time, it still took about 15 seconds for someone to come to his aid. None of the 20+ staff at the auditorium came to help immediately either, which was even more shocking, since I hope that they would have some idea of what to do in a situation like that. Altogether, it was a very scary, confusing situation. I'm just glad he's alright.
- karanlyons 16y ago
  To clarify (and I can't believe this is what prompted me to create an account, but there you go): The first time he fainted, everyone just thought it was part of the speech. The second time, staff immediately came to his aid. This isn't some crisis with my generation or anything. It was just confusion.
  - peter_and 16y ago
    Your generation == My generation Perhaps it looked different from my vantage point, but the first person to rush to help him when he fainted the second time was not a staff member of the auditorium, it was a Program Board representative (read: one of the students who organized the event) seated in one of the first few rows. I did not see one of the red shirt Bovard employees until after that student acted. I didn't intend to imply that there's a problem with our generation (as others have).
    - karanlyons 16y ago
      > I didn't intend to imply that there's a problem with our generation (as others have). And I do thank you for that. I think what happened was a rapid delineation of responsibility: The red shirted Bovard employees were ushers, and so their job was to ensure that the audience didn't become (for gross lack of a better word due to little sleep on my part) hostile. The program board member's job was to go to Bill Nye, whilst the tech staff backstage went to get chairs, water, food, and the like. Meanwhile the people in the booth were calling DPS (the on campus police force), and 911. The thing about everyone working that event is that they are all on headset. They were all no doubt following on instructions from their superiors on what was decided to be the best course of action. Whilst it may not have been the most PR friendly response, I can't help but think that having a large swarm of staff all run to Mr. Nye would be nearly as helpful as what (from the best I can tell, both from my experience as a member of the staff (I didn't work the event), and from what I heard from people who did work the event, and audience members as well) actually occurred. Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out why this matters to me so much. On the one hand, I know these people, I work with them regularly, and I can't possibly fathom that they just stood there and did nothing. And indeed everything I've heard from trusted sources has been the exact opposite. On the other hand, I'm annoyed that this is receiving as much attention as it is, as I don't think Mr. Nye wanted it that way (again, from what I've heard of him after the event), and I think trying to tie this incident to some sort of great failing of our generation is—frankly—ridiculous. Perhaps the most important thing I'd like to illuminate in this comment would be that there is a far greater number of staff members working any event than the ones that you see, and just because you don't see anyone doing anything doesn't mean that they aren't. Though, yeah, I can imagine it looked bad.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
leftnode 16y ago
You're exactly right. However, I imagine a lot of people in the crowd thought it might be part of the speech.
treyp 16y ago
the psychological concept behind what you're describing is called "diffusion of responsibility" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility apartment buildings have burned down because nobody called the fire department, assuming someone else would do it the entire time. when i was on a recent trip talking with a tour guide, the guide told me that they limit each group to around fifty people not because they can't handle it, but because they actually make less in tips in larger groups. the same applies here -- nobody tips because everyone assumes that the others will tip.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
wr1472 16y ago
Superfreakonmics[2] talks about this in chapter 3 about the Kitty Genovese[1] murder when no one went to her aid, in effect everyone thinking that someone else would go. They do expand on it further and blow apart some of the urban myths surrounding all the events (I can't remember the specifics now unfortunately). Definitely worth reading. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese [2] http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/ http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerp...
- gruseom 16y ago
  That's interesting, because Cialdini's classic Influence covers this same ground (http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials/dp/006124189X http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Busine...). Has anyone read both books? I'm curious as to whether Superfreakonomics added anything over Cialdini's treatment.
- eli 16y ago
  Interestingly, while the bystander effect is a real thing -- the Kitty Genovese story doesn't really support it. As wikipedia points out in its understated way, the story that prompted all this research has "been criticized as inaccurate." There were actually very few witnesses who could have seen her murder and it's entirely possible that at least one of them did call the police.
  - wr1472 16y ago
    From memory I think there were a number of calls, but the police didn't prioritise them highly enough. I think in the end it was a neighbour who ID'ed the murderer.
pmichaud 16y ago
One of my earlier essays was about the bystander effect: http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/the-bomb-and-the-bystander/ http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/the-bomb-and-the-bystande...

by tc 16y ago

peter_and 16y ago

As someone who was there (in the 3rd balcony) it was seriously shocking. As dumb as it sounds, I think some people thought it was part of his act, although when he collapsed the second time, it still took about 15 seconds for someone to come to his aid. None of the 20+ staff at the auditorium came to help immediately either, which was even more shocking, since I hope that they would have some idea of what to do in a situation like that. Altogether, it was a very scary, confusing situation. I'm just glad he's alright.

karanlyons 16y ago
To clarify (and I can't believe this is what prompted me to create an account, but there you go): The first time he fainted, everyone just thought it was part of the speech. The second time, staff immediately came to his aid. This isn't some crisis with my generation or anything. It was just confusion.
- peter_and 16y ago
  Your generation == My generation Perhaps it looked different from my vantage point, but the first person to rush to help him when he fainted the second time was not a staff member of the auditorium, it was a Program Board representative (read: one of the students who organized the event) seated in one of the first few rows. I did not see one of the red shirt Bovard employees until after that student acted. I didn't intend to imply that there's a problem with our generation (as others have).
  - karanlyons 16y ago
    > I didn't intend to imply that there's a problem with our generation (as others have). And I do thank you for that. I think what happened was a rapid delineation of responsibility: The red shirted Bovard employees were ushers, and so their job was to ensure that the audience didn't become (for gross lack of a better word due to little sleep on my part) hostile. The program board member's job was to go to Bill Nye, whilst the tech staff backstage went to get chairs, water, food, and the like. Meanwhile the people in the booth were calling DPS (the on campus police force), and 911. The thing about everyone working that event is that they are all on headset. They were all no doubt following on instructions from their superiors on what was decided to be the best course of action. Whilst it may not have been the most PR friendly response, I can't help but think that having a large swarm of staff all run to Mr. Nye would be nearly as helpful as what (from the best I can tell, both from my experience as a member of the staff (I didn't work the event), and from what I heard from people who did work the event, and audience members as well) actually occurred. Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out why this matters to me so much. On the one hand, I know these people, I work with them regularly, and I can't possibly fathom that they just stood there and did nothing. And indeed everything I've heard from trusted sources has been the exact opposite. On the other hand, I'm annoyed that this is receiving as much attention as it is, as I don't think Mr. Nye wanted it that way (again, from what I've heard of him after the event), and I think trying to tie this incident to some sort of great failing of our generation is—frankly—ridiculous. Perhaps the most important thing I'd like to illuminate in this comment would be that there is a far greater number of staff members working any event than the ones that you see, and just because you don't see anyone doing anything doesn't mean that they aren't. Though, yeah, I can imagine it looked bad.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

leftnode 16y ago

You're exactly right. However, I imagine a lot of people in the crowd thought it might be part of the speech.

treyp 16y ago

the psychological concept behind what you're describing is called "diffusion of responsibility" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility apartment buildings have burned down because nobody called the fire department, assuming someone else would do it the entire time. when i was on a recent trip talking with a tour guide, the guide told me that they limit each group to around fifty people not because they can't handle it, but because they actually make less in tips in larger groups. the same applies here -- nobody tips because everyone assumes that the others will tip.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

wr1472 16y ago

Superfreakonmics[2] talks about this in chapter 3 about the Kitty Genovese[1] murder when no one went to her aid, in effect everyone thinking that someone else would go. They do expand on it further and blow apart some of the urban myths surrounding all the events (I can't remember the specifics now unfortunately). Definitely worth reading. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese [2] http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/ http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerp...

gruseom 16y ago
That's interesting, because Cialdini's classic Influence covers this same ground (http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials/dp/006124189X http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Busine...). Has anyone read both books? I'm curious as to whether Superfreakonomics added anything over Cialdini's treatment.
eli 16y ago
Interestingly, while the bystander effect is a real thing -- the Kitty Genovese story doesn't really support it. As wikipedia points out in its understated way, the story that prompted all this research has "been criticized as inaccurate." There were actually very few witnesses who could have seen her murder and it's entirely possible that at least one of them did call the police.
- wr1472 16y ago
  From memory I think there were a number of calls, but the police didn't prioritise them highly enough. I think in the end it was a neighbour who ID'ed the murderer.

pmichaud 16y ago

One of my earlier essays was about the bystander effect: http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/the-bomb-and-the-bystander/ http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/the-bomb-and-the-bystande...