3 ms·

It sounds like a very interesting project, but I think the reward system is unnecessary. A special "helper list" (one or two people from friends and family) sh

It sounds like a very interesting project, but I think the reward system is unnecessary. A special "helper list" (one or two people from friends and family) should be mandatory, because sending the signal to everyone around you might not result in any help due to the Bystander Effect (Darley, Latané). For more information -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

mikeash 12y ago
I also imagine there will be a lot of false positives that will inure strangers to responding. It doesn't take a lot of people who are jumpy and push the button when a tree moves in the wind to overwhelm legitimate calls for help. Even 911, which is harder to use, gets drilled into us as being only for emergencies, and has serious legal consequences for extreme abuse, gets a ton of stupid calls.
Anderkent 12y ago
Bystander effect only applies if everyone sees that many other people could be helping, AFAIK. If you don't know how many people around got the alert, I think it's similar to being the only person who did?
- vidarh 12y ago
  I don't think that's clear at all. Some of the reasons the bystander effect "works" may even be amplified: You don't see if others respond, so you may question whether or not it's a genuine emergency or a false alert, for example.
ianbicking 12y ago
I don't think the bystander effect is nearly as significant as common wisdom would imply. People don't respond not because they think someone else will, but because they don't understand what's going on. I live in an urban area, and I pay attention to noises, but almost every time I hear a scream and investigate it's some boisterous teenagers or some similar phenomena. If I knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are requesting help – I would respond. The wiki page largely confirms this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_versus_non-emergency_situations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_ver... – most of the factors which encourage response by bystanders would be satisfied by this system.
- vidarh 12y ago
  > People don't respond not because they think someone else will, but because they don't understand what's going on. Well yes, but the reason people don't understand the seriousness is generally thought to be that when in groups people will see the inaction of the group and conclude that if it was something serious, someone else would have responded and/or assume they have intervened (e.g. by calling an ambulance). In groups people will pretty consistently take longer and be less likely to even notice what is going on, and then take longer and be less likely to respond, even when the situations are otherwise identical, because people are inhibited by social conventions and "social proof". There are factors that may reduce that difference. E.g. the more clearly it is an emergency. But even situations where people are very obviously in distress can result in inaction - the Wikipedia page has several examples. Cialdini (in Influence) notes that even specific cries for help in obvious emergencies are often ignored by groups. He himself was actually in a car crash, and realised people were just driving by and ignoring them, until he realised and made use of his own advice: Make yourself noticed, be specific about what help you need, and be specific about who you want to provide it. That is, screaming "help" gets you ignored. Screaming "you in the blue jacket, call an ambulance" gets people to respond. Once you first get a response, you get more response - the bystander effect works to your benefit: people see other people acting, and suddenly everyone accepts it's an emergency and helps. > If I knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are requesting help – I would respond. That may be true for you, especially if you are alone. But the moment group dynamics are triggered, the odds starts dropping that you will intervene with each extra person involved up until some fairly low limit (at which point the chance of intervention is quite small).

mikeash 12y ago

I also imagine there will be a lot of false positives that will inure strangers to responding. It doesn't take a lot of people who are jumpy and push the button when a tree moves in the wind to overwhelm legitimate calls for help. Even 911, which is harder to use, gets drilled into us as being only for emergencies, and has serious legal consequences for extreme abuse, gets a ton of stupid calls.

Anderkent 12y ago

Bystander effect only applies if everyone sees that many other people could be helping, AFAIK. If you don't know how many people around got the alert, I think it's similar to being the only person who did?

vidarh 12y ago
I don't think that's clear at all. Some of the reasons the bystander effect "works" may even be amplified: You don't see if others respond, so you may question whether or not it's a genuine emergency or a false alert, for example.

ianbicking 12y ago

I don't think the bystander effect is nearly as significant as common wisdom would imply. People don't respond not because they think someone else will, but because they don't understand what's going on. I live in an urban area, and I pay attention to noises, but almost every time I hear a scream and investigate it's some boisterous teenagers or some similar phenomena. If I knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are requesting help – I would respond. The wiki page largely confirms this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_versus_non-emergency_situations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Emergency_ver... – most of the factors which encourage response by bystanders would be satisfied by this system.

vidarh 12y ago
> People don't respond not because they think someone else will, but because they don't understand what's going on. Well yes, but the reason people don't understand the seriousness is generally thought to be that when in groups people will see the inaction of the group and conclude that if it was something serious, someone else would have responded and/or assume they have intervened (e.g. by calling an ambulance). In groups people will pretty consistently take longer and be less likely to even notice what is going on, and then take longer and be less likely to respond, even when the situations are otherwise identical, because people are inhibited by social conventions and "social proof". There are factors that may reduce that difference. E.g. the more clearly it is an emergency. But even situations where people are very obviously in distress can result in inaction - the Wikipedia page has several examples. Cialdini (in Influence) notes that even specific cries for help in obvious emergencies are often ignored by groups. He himself was actually in a car crash, and realised people were just driving by and ignoring them, until he realised and made use of his own advice: Make yourself noticed, be specific about what help you need, and be specific about who you want to provide it. That is, screaming "help" gets you ignored. Screaming "you in the blue jacket, call an ambulance" gets people to respond. Once you first get a response, you get more response - the bystander effect works to your benefit: people see other people acting, and suddenly everyone accepts it's an emergency and helps. > If I knew the person was requesting help – even if I don't know WHY they are requesting help – I would respond. That may be true for you, especially if you are alone. But the moment group dynamics are triggered, the odds starts dropping that you will intervene with each extra person involved up until some fairly low limit (at which point the chance of intervention is quite small).