Looking for thread on [Bystander Effect]

October 22, 2003 6:35 PM

Can't seem to find a thread I recall reading here. It was about some social science experiments correlating the size of a group of people appealed to for help with the likelihood that volunteers would actually come out of an appeal.
posted by weston to MetaFilter-Related at 6:35 PM (37 comments total)

Not that it helps a lot, but I remember that one.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:02 PM on October 22, 2003

It probably helps even less that I don't remember it.
posted by dg at 7:08 PM on October 22, 2003

I haven't the time to recall it.
posted by mischief at 7:08 PM on October 22, 2003

Is this some kind of recursive riddle? Self-fulfilling experiment? Pretty funny if so. If not... pretty sad.

(That's 0/4 volunteers so far, how are we doing?)
posted by scarabic at 7:14 PM on October 22, 2003

It's called the Bystander Effect or Diffusion of Responsibility.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:28 PM on October 22, 2003

I was going to go through all those slides, but I figure eventually someone else will do it and tell me what it says.
posted by yhbc at 8:32 PM on October 22, 2003

GAK! powerpoint! * runs screaming *
posted by PrinceValium at 8:44 PM on October 22, 2003

This one was an interesting read and confirmed my own observations about the decisions made by committees. Thanks!
posted by dg at 8:47 PM on October 22, 2003

I did read that one, dg, I was just trying to be my usual semi-funny self, dangit. Yes, it really makes you think about the results and reactions taken by groups and committees, especially when you're on one of those committees.
posted by yhbc at 8:55 PM on October 22, 2003

Yeah, that was my take on it as well, yhbc. By the way, I wasn't trying to tell you what the slides said - if you want to know, read the damned things yourself.
posted by dg at 9:05 PM on October 22, 2003

Er, is weston's question answered, then? 'cause I went and did some MeFi searching and came up empty.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:30 PM on October 22, 2003

Anyone?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:00 PM on October 22, 2003

weston, is this the thread you were thinking of?
posted by taz at 12:00 AM on October 23, 2003

I wonder if anyone has done a study on the the likelihood that volunteers would actually come out of an appeal for help on MeTa?
posted by dg at 12:16 AM on October 23, 2003

Can anyone recommend a decent/good value place to stay in Singapore?
posted by i_cola at 12:21 AM on October 23, 2003

Well done, taz! :)

Not only that but, according to a silly but funny Internet game now going on in several Portuguese weblogs' comment boxes - the Time Stamp Game - you and I scored 10 points for posting exactly on the hour and five fresh fish scored 8 for posting on the exact half-hour.

I might as well include all the rules: you also get 5 points for a quarter-past or quarter-to time stamp. Everybody with any other time-stamp gets negative points for the greatest difference to the the nearest hour, half-hour or quarter-hour. E.g. 12:19 is minus 11; 12:59 is minus 14; 12:14 is also minus 14.

Funny that the last three comments all score positive.

On preview: dg is -14 and i_cola is a tragic -19. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:29 AM on October 23, 2003

Er, i mean -9.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:30 AM on October 23, 2003

Sometimes I worry about you Miguel....







+8 for Miguel.
posted by The God Complex at 12:52 AM on October 23, 2003

I suggest adding bonus points for postings, for example, at 11:11 or 4:44, and nuking the poster for any timestamp that could be successfully argued to resemble an emoticon - such as 8:13 (poofy hair, eyes, smile, and beard, or double chin, or breasts).
posted by taz at 1:07 AM on October 23, 2003

I suggest adding bonus points for posters who actually have poofy hair, eyes, smile, and beard, or double chin, or breasts.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:11 AM on October 23, 2003

and the terrible thing is that some of us would win with a full house.
posted by taz at 1:14 AM on October 23, 2003

oh, and extra bonus points to you, at 1:11...
posted by taz at 1:15 AM on October 23, 2003

Yeah, right. Now about my accommodation...

[Asparagirl: Miggy has all of those ;-) ]
posted by i_cola at 1:22 AM on October 23, 2003

*giggles*

5 points to taz - and a daiquiri!

I knew it was too much of a third-world game.

OK then: 2,5 points for every repeated number.

E.g.: 7,5 points for 1:11 (Asparagirl) but 10 points for 11:11. Only 5 points for 10:10.

Emoticon-resembling timestamps incur an extra -5 penalty.

If we work enough at it, we can actually make it too complicated to play!

Finally, I think waiting for a round time-stamp is unethical. One should just post and accept the luck of the draw.

(Pity there's no time-stamp on preview, though.)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:27 AM on October 23, 2003

-3, Miguel.

You have found the Rounding Clock of Quarter Hours. Do 2d6 +4 damage and round all clocks to the nearest quarter hours. Also, you meet a hot goblin lady. What do you want to do?
posted by The God Complex at 1:34 AM on October 23, 2003

I think The God Complex has flat hair, eyes, a beard, and crossed legs. -5, (plus, of course, the regular -11).
posted by taz at 1:46 AM on October 23, 2003

I also have a birthdate in the 80's, which is cause for further penalty, of that I am sure. The gyre is widening.
posted by The God Complex at 1:50 AM on October 23, 2003

TGC: only -3 for that? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:01 AM on October 23, 2003

Damn!

TGC, you're counting the generous, altruistic way. That 1:27 timestamp of mine is -12 off 1:15; rather than -3 away from 1:30. Be mean! And you're really messing up my score now!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:04 AM on October 23, 2003

TGC: birthdate in the 80's... What was the timestamp?
posted by taz at 2:12 AM on October 23, 2003

I'll take it that noone who has been anywhere near Singapore is awake right now...
posted by i_cola at 3:37 AM on October 23, 2003

I further vote that for any timestamp in which the attendant post mentions Singapore, the poster is penalized 100 points for each repeated number.

So that would be... -200 points for this post, i_cola, plus -400 for your 12:21 post, plus -5 because your timestamp has horns, eyes, beard, and arm-bent-at-elbow, plus the regular -8 points for this post, plus -9 for your 12:21 post, plus -8 for your 1:22 post = -630 points for you.
posted by taz at 3:53 AM on October 23, 2003

take on a sackful!
posted by mcsweetie at 5:55 AM on October 23, 2003

taz's isn't the one I remember. The one I remember was about an experiment where the researcher had grad students act out an assault or accident, and had a "plant" in the crowd who would/would not step forward to help.

He found that in small groups, someone was likely to step forward; in large groups, unlikely to. Root cause was assumed to be that in larger groups, people assume someone more competent than themselves is available.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:09 AM on October 23, 2003

Also, the best way to get help is to point at someone and say, "I need help. Do this." Frequently, people aren't quite sure if there really is a problem. When people know there is a problem, and someone has been pointed at and asked for help, they are more likely to do something.
posted by stoneegg21 at 4:25 AM on October 26, 2003

I think fff is right -- taz's post isn't the one I remember, and fff's description seems closer. It's not like this is critical, but basically I did this because (1) I thought it was a perfect MetaQuestion and (2) I'm actually developing some ideas for a volunteer organization that's struggling to get enough volunteer time to operate without burning out a few who often/always help out.
posted by weston at 6:27 PM on October 26, 2003

*points at stoneegg21 and tells him to help weston's volunteer organisation*
posted by dg at 6:36 PM on October 26, 2003