6 ms·

I have witnessed something quite similar. During the flash-floods in 2021 in Germany, locals in the Ahr region absolutely rose to the occasion. Farmers were eva

I have witnessed something quite similar. During the flash-floods in 2021 in Germany, locals in the Ahr region absolutely rose to the occasion. Farmers were evacuating people in head-high water with their tractors during the night, local restaurants were already providing hot food and water the next morning wherever they could reach, pharmacies were loading whatever they had available on ATVs to somehow get much-needed medicine down precarious mudpaths. Local construction companies were already clearing rubble and building emergency bridges out of it. One Excavator was just basically standing in the middle of the river and ferrying people and rescue partys across. The local racetrack basically just organized everything while politicians were still playing the blame game. When our local firebrigade was officially pulled back from active duty because we lost one of ours during rescue operations in the first day, basically everyone just went down again and just tried to do whatever was possible. Absolutely stunning what people will do when they are face to face with disaster. I freely admit that I was crying like a little girl when I first saw the endless columns of Bundeswehr, THW, Fire Brigades, Farmers, basically everyone who could just streaming to help people they never met but were neighbors and friends for me. Sorry for the rambling, but I am still not emotionally disconnected enough from it to concisely talk about it.

mlyle 4y ago
Yes. I think people are good overall. I think the biggest reason people in small towns may be a bit quicker to help is that people in cities are a little conditioned by the bystander effect to assume that people around them, or the authorities, are better equipped to help. But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  > or the authorities, are better equipped to help. It's not just "equipped to help". It's also that random untrained people can do more harm than good. Hell, even random trained people can do more harm that good when there are too many people around. I'm not a medical professional, but I have some first aid training and have been the most-trained first responder in not-even-crowded areas on a few occasions. Even with only 10 people around, managing the crowd while providing care becomes difficult. The article even mentions: > “It was a wonderful problem to have,” said school district superintendent, Eric Hoyt, “but we probably had too many volunteers show up.” In a town of 171 people. Just 171 people, and crowd management became a problem. Now drop into Manhattan, with approximately 1.629 million more people. If "everyone" showed up to an incident, you'd have at least an order of magnitude more deaths from the stampede to help than from the original event. People in dense cities move away from the scene of an accident in order to get out of the way, which in most cases is genuinely the best thing they can do to help.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Yah-- I'm not even quite talking about that, though. Whether someone else is better qualified to help in a given circumstance or not, we're conditioned to not get involved because someone else will. Hence, the bystander effect, which stops people from being helpful even when they could. I have first aid training, too, and my impulse is not to rush to help but to look around at other people and see if they're going to do something.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > I think people are good overall. Until a certain amount of sacrifices have to be made. Then things start getting tribal. The sacrifices do not even have to be material, simply sacrificing or losing socioeconomic status relative to others is sufficient.
  - Threeve303 4y ago
    I have found otherwise good people are capable of intentionally doing awful things to another human, even if you have known someone almost your entire life, a switch flips and it is like a full psychopath is unlocked. Many only need the moral cover, certain they are right, to say and do awful things to another. This was always true but it seems to me that social media, in all its forms, not only takes your privacy, it also takes your empathy. At the root of many mental health disorders exists narcissism and for the past few decades an increasing number of people have been added to the empathy erasing internet hate machine. Just look around, the proof is everywhere.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      The proof of kindness is everywhere, too. Just look around.
      - adventured 4y ago
        In most cases people see what they prefer to see. Their response to such impossible questions tells you more about them - how they see the world, their sense of life - than it does humanity at large.
        bloomingeek 4y ago
        I agree, this is a hard subject, whether people are good or not. I've always believed we're all capable of doing good under certain conditions, but let most get out of their comfort zone and they'll turn on you like a mad dog. (sorry) Proof? just look at our political scene the last 5 plus years. I won't debate any thing ideologically anymore with co-workers, they simply default to anger when you press them to explain how they feel and why about any difficult ideas.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  > But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful. Fortunately yes, though I think I'd still give the edge to small towns for this. In cities, people are a lot more wary of being scammed, since it happens more often in areas with more people.
- townied 4y ago
  Having gone small town to “the city,” my interactions with other humans are by and large a net negative to the point that it’s almost better for one’s sanity to not involve outside of whatever communities you have therein. Having spent a decade now here, it feels a bit like when you’re getting a cavity ground out at the dentist and they finally hit the nerve. Spending time away, “back home” or in some other tight-knit society only seems to fill it in for it to be ground back down. For the folks that can and do thrive in “the city,” I find it fascinating on how we must differ in mind and spirit.
  - jlkuester7 4y ago
    I am with you here! There are lots of things I enjoy about living in the city, but ultimately I would also rate it as a net negative for my quality of life. After almost 10 years of it, my family is finally taking the plunge and we are getting out. (Hooray for remote work and StarLink!)
- dangrossman 4y ago
  There is no bystander effect. It was a theory invented and spread by the NYPD to take the spotlight off the fact that they didn't respond to calls reporting a murder in public. > Philpot et al. (2019) examined over 200 sets of real-life surveillance video recordings [across 3 countries]...they found that intervention was the norm, and in over 90% of conflicts one or more bystanders intervened to provide help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Citing wikipedia, and cherrypicking one of the few pieces of research that partially argues against the effect in the massive article, is dubious. The study you cited, indeed, doesn't deny the bystander effect that each person becomes less likely to help as more people are present. It just argues that in the most dangerous situations, the odds of someone intervening goes up slightly as the number of people increase. See https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/134891/1/Would_I_be_Helped_Cross_National_CCTV_Footage_Shows_That_Intervention_Is_the_Norm_in_Public_Conflicts_Postprint.pdf https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/134891/1/Would_I_be_He... I can tell you, my probability of intervening is lower the more people that are around. The total probability of someone intervening may go up or down based on a lot of circumstances. This is consistent with many individual research findings and meta-analyses, e.g. https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2107050526/2107050526.pdf https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2107050526/2107050526.pdf As other people point out, it is rational and even helpful to be less inclined to intervene when more people are around and are likely to be able to help.
    - dangrossman 4y ago
      I cited wikipedia as that's where I learned that the "bystander effect" was a PR campaign invented by the NYPD in 1964, an interesting fact I thought to share. It states this in the first paragraph, then cites the study I chose to quote in both the next paragraph, as well as again later in the entry. I didn't cherry pick it, it's the main thrust of the page, and the largest study of its kind. In 219 observed disputes across 3 countries, the only times no bystander intervened were when couples were arguing amongst themselves, or when a thief was the one being beaten up.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How do you know people in smaller towns are quicker to help?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I don't know it, I say "may be" quicker to help. It does seem likely, given what we know about bystander effect. In cities, we're conditioned to expect someone else will take care of whatever's wrong, and this is less true in rural environs.
neuronic 4y ago
Thank you for bringing this up, it was the parallel story that first popped into my mind as well, as this was a national tragedy of rare proportions. To me the amount of people streaming from everywhere in the entire country (!) to help fix up a region that has been struck with disaster moved me to tears more than once now. And the happier I am about this circumstance, the angrier I get at politicians and some media.
andrepd 4y ago
Indeed. Any cursory observation of human behaviour will disprove the Thatcherian maxim that people only ever do anything for their own selfish interest.

mlyle 4y ago

Yes. I think people are good overall. I think the biggest reason people in small towns may be a bit quicker to help is that people in cities are a little conditioned by the bystander effect to assume that people around them, or the authorities, are better equipped to help. But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful.

InefficientRed 4y ago
> or the authorities, are better equipped to help. It's not just "equipped to help". It's also that random untrained people can do more harm than good. Hell, even random trained people can do more harm that good when there are too many people around. I'm not a medical professional, but I have some first aid training and have been the most-trained first responder in not-even-crowded areas on a few occasions. Even with only 10 people around, managing the crowd while providing care becomes difficult. The article even mentions: > “It was a wonderful problem to have,” said school district superintendent, Eric Hoyt, “but we probably had too many volunteers show up.” In a town of 171 people. Just 171 people, and crowd management became a problem. Now drop into Manhattan, with approximately 1.629 million more people. If "everyone" showed up to an incident, you'd have at least an order of magnitude more deaths from the stampede to help than from the original event. People in dense cities move away from the scene of an accident in order to get out of the way, which in most cases is genuinely the best thing they can do to help.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Yah-- I'm not even quite talking about that, though. Whether someone else is better qualified to help in a given circumstance or not, we're conditioned to not get involved because someone else will. Hence, the bystander effect, which stops people from being helpful even when they could. I have first aid training, too, and my impulse is not to rush to help but to look around at other people and see if they're going to do something.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> I think people are good overall. Until a certain amount of sacrifices have to be made. Then things start getting tribal. The sacrifices do not even have to be material, simply sacrificing or losing socioeconomic status relative to others is sufficient.
- Threeve303 4y ago
  I have found otherwise good people are capable of intentionally doing awful things to another human, even if you have known someone almost your entire life, a switch flips and it is like a full psychopath is unlocked. Many only need the moral cover, certain they are right, to say and do awful things to another. This was always true but it seems to me that social media, in all its forms, not only takes your privacy, it also takes your empathy. At the root of many mental health disorders exists narcissism and for the past few decades an increasing number of people have been added to the empathy erasing internet hate machine. Just look around, the proof is everywhere.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    The proof of kindness is everywhere, too. Just look around.
    - adventured 4y ago
      In most cases people see what they prefer to see. Their response to such impossible questions tells you more about them - how they see the world, their sense of life - than it does humanity at large.
      - bloomingeek 4y ago
        I agree, this is a hard subject, whether people are good or not. I've always believed we're all capable of doing good under certain conditions, but let most get out of their comfort zone and they'll turn on you like a mad dog. (sorry) Proof? just look at our political scene the last 5 plus years. I won't debate any thing ideologically anymore with co-workers, they simply default to anger when you press them to explain how they feel and why about any difficult ideas.
karaterobot 4y ago
> But any random individual asked for help in a city is likely to go well beyond their duty and be quite helpful. Fortunately yes, though I think I'd still give the edge to small towns for this. In cities, people are a lot more wary of being scammed, since it happens more often in areas with more people.
townied 4y ago
Having gone small town to “the city,” my interactions with other humans are by and large a net negative to the point that it’s almost better for one’s sanity to not involve outside of whatever communities you have therein. Having spent a decade now here, it feels a bit like when you’re getting a cavity ground out at the dentist and they finally hit the nerve. Spending time away, “back home” or in some other tight-knit society only seems to fill it in for it to be ground back down. For the folks that can and do thrive in “the city,” I find it fascinating on how we must differ in mind and spirit.
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  I am with you here! There are lots of things I enjoy about living in the city, but ultimately I would also rate it as a net negative for my quality of life. After almost 10 years of it, my family is finally taking the plunge and we are getting out. (Hooray for remote work and StarLink!)
dangrossman 4y ago
There is no bystander effect. It was a theory invented and spread by the NYPD to take the spotlight off the fact that they didn't respond to calls reporting a murder in public. > Philpot et al. (2019) examined over 200 sets of real-life surveillance video recordings [across 3 countries]...they found that intervention was the norm, and in over 90% of conflicts one or more bystanders intervened to provide help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
- mlyle 4y ago
  Citing wikipedia, and cherrypicking one of the few pieces of research that partially argues against the effect in the massive article, is dubious. The study you cited, indeed, doesn't deny the bystander effect that each person becomes less likely to help as more people are present. It just argues that in the most dangerous situations, the odds of someone intervening goes up slightly as the number of people increase. See https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/134891/1/Would_I_be_Helped_Cross_National_CCTV_Footage_Shows_That_Intervention_Is_the_Norm_in_Public_Conflicts_Postprint.pdf https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/134891/1/Would_I_be_He... I can tell you, my probability of intervening is lower the more people that are around. The total probability of someone intervening may go up or down based on a lot of circumstances. This is consistent with many individual research findings and meta-analyses, e.g. https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2107050526/2107050526.pdf https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2107050526/2107050526.pdf As other people point out, it is rational and even helpful to be less inclined to intervene when more people are around and are likely to be able to help.
  - dangrossman 4y ago
    I cited wikipedia as that's where I learned that the "bystander effect" was a PR campaign invented by the NYPD in 1964, an interesting fact I thought to share. It states this in the first paragraph, then cites the study I chose to quote in both the next paragraph, as well as again later in the entry. I didn't cherry pick it, it's the main thrust of the page, and the largest study of its kind. In 219 observed disputes across 3 countries, the only times no bystander intervened were when couples were arguing amongst themselves, or when a thief was the one being beaten up.
themitigating 4y ago
How do you know people in smaller towns are quicker to help?
- mlyle 4y ago
  I don't know it, I say "may be" quicker to help. It does seem likely, given what we know about bystander effect. In cities, we're conditioned to expect someone else will take care of whatever's wrong, and this is less true in rural environs.

neuronic 4y ago

Thank you for bringing this up, it was the parallel story that first popped into my mind as well, as this was a national tragedy of rare proportions. To me the amount of people streaming from everywhere in the entire country (!) to help fix up a region that has been struck with disaster moved me to tears more than once now. And the happier I am about this circumstance, the angrier I get at politicians and some media.

andrepd 4y ago

Indeed. Any cursory observation of human behaviour will disprove the Thatcherian maxim that people only ever do anything for their own selfish interest.