Human Nature
A woman is screaming and the smell of a raging fire is in the air. There’s a group of people about fifteen yards away who are witnessing the event. They all stand there in awe of the destruction but not one of them has called the authorities. Jack, a businessman walking by himself, sees the fire and the woman trapped inside the building. Without hesitation he uses his cell phone to call the fire department. Once getting off the phone, this brave man runs into the smoldering building to try and save the woman. Coming out of the building without being harmed, he and the woman are safe. If one man could do this, why did the group of people watching not do anything? The explanation for the reactions of the people is due to what may be said as human nature. It seems that when in groups, people are less reactive when they are in the presence of danger or hazard.
Carol Tavris, who received a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of Michigan, is a widely published author. In her works, “ In Groups We Shrink From Loner’s Heroics,” she talks about the human nature of people and how in groups, humans seem to “…think and act differently than they would on their own” (Tavris 17). When facing danger or disaster, groups of people do not run to the aid of others because of the nature of groups versus the nature of individuals (Tavris 18). Tavris is trying to reach everyone and have them be aware of what is human instinct versus what is moral. She is hoping that her readers will take something away with them from the article and hopefully react morally when seeing people in danger or in desperate need of help.
Throughout her piece, Tavris uses two main structures: compare and contrast structure and the problem/solution structure. She uses these so that her readers can see the comparison or the solution right away. She very vividly shows the difference in the reactions of people when she uses the compare and contrast structure.
“Something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. (17)” States Carol Tavris in her article, “In Groups We Shrink From Loner’s Heroics”. Tavris believes people who are in groups tend to act in a more sluggish manor than those alone. She states many examples of this theory in her article, including the story of Kitty Genovese which is stated in the first paragraph. Kitty was stabbed repeatedly and killed in front of her New York apartment. No one did anything to stop this heinous action from taking place. Within her essay she obtains rhetorical appeals to prove that her statements are plausible to the audience.
The overall policy explains the overall key points of how parental consent is required for tattooing, branding, and body piercing for anyone under the age of eighteen (Idaho Code 18-1523. (2004). It is explained throughout the bill, of how no one under the age of fourteen may acquire any form of tattooing, branding, or body piercing; as well, that no person should knowingly tattoo, brand or perform body piercings on a minor between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years unless the person obtains previous written informed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian (Idaho Code 18-1523. (2004). The policy allows guardians, and parents to help guide minors from unsafe conditions as minors are not emotionally and physically mature enough to decide for themselves on conditions that are permanent and that can be regretted the rest of the minor’s life (Manning, 2013).
Tattoos have been utilized in various ways for thousands of years, ranging from punishment, to status symbols and indications of religious beliefs. They have served as the ultimate illustration of cultural diffusion in America, and despite generally carrying a negative social stigma, perception of tattoos has continued to evolve into a more acceptable practice.
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
In an emergency situation where the only the bystander is present, the bystander might fear for their safety but all of the pressure to intervene is focused on the bystander increasing the chances of intervention. In a similar situation but there are several observers present, the pressure to intervene is shared among all the observers. None of the witnesses feels solely responsible and this results in no action from the witnesses. In terms of blame, individual behavior is driven on consequences and this influences a bystander to act. In a group, blame cannot be assigned to a single individual resulting in inaction. In a case where observes are known to be present but their behavior cannot be observed, a bystander can assume the observers have intervened so the bystander’s intervention is unnecessary. The researchers began their experiment with the hypothesis that the more bystanders present at an emergency; the less likely any one bystander will
Carol Tavris was trying to get across the point that people act different in different situations. When it comes to ones personal safety then they act different. One person would get up at the first sign of danger, or go to someone’s help. But when there are other people involved and they are in a strange environment they don’t know how to act. They aren’t sure whether smoke pouring into a room or any other threatening situation is normal. They don’t want to get embarrassed or make a fool of themselves.
“The bystander is a modern archetype, from the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda to the current environmental crisis,” says Charles Garfield, who is a clinical professor of psychology at the University of California in San Francisco who is currently writing a book on the psychological differences between bystanders and the people who show moral courage. Garfield questioned why some people respond to the crisis around them while others don’t. Researchers have spent decades trying to answer Garfield’s question and their research suggests that we humans fall into either of the two categories: Bystanders vs. the morally courageous people and very subtle de...
The Holocaust is a traumatic history. About six millions of Jews got killed during this period of time. Holocaust is a history of anti-Semitism in Europe, anti-Semitism gained their strength after World War One, Germany had lost the war, so the German people blame the Jews for losing the war, and the Jews became the scapegoat. So Anne Frank is one of those Jews who got discriminate during the Holocaust. She went to hiding with her family, and the diary she wrote during her hiding time remained after she got killed in the camp. Her diary was published after then, and in her diary she had state it “Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.” I totally agree with her in this statement.
However, that opposing argument can be found as hypocritical. If a person was getting robbed in an ally and they saw many witnesses taking no action they would likely be upset by the fact of no one is offering any assistance to them. Bystanders should put themselves into the shoes of the person in need and ask themselves how they would expect others to respond if they were the one in need. Often time’s bystanders take no intervention because of the diffusion of responsibility. “When there are four or more people who are bystanders to an emergency situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will help is just 31%” (Gaille). Another statistic shows that 85% of people who were bystanders would intervene if they knew or at least though they were the only person present in the situation. Often the only thing keeping people from intervening in bystander situations are other people. It is important for bystanders to understand the statistics of the people around them in order to create action because often times they do not realize that if they were to intervene other people would likely support them in the situation. Bystanders need to make it a personal responsibility to intervene in situations for the good of other. If people were to always take action the amount of bullying, sexual harassment, crime, and many other significant issues within a society would drastically
On March 13, 1964 a woman by the name of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese was coming back to her apartment in Queens, New York at 3:00 a.m. when she was impaled to death by a serial killer. According to the news, the said attack was about 30 minutes long. During the attack, Kitty Genovese screamed for help numerous times. The killer left the scene when the attention of a neighbor was attracted. Ten minutes later, the killer returned to the scene and murdered Genovese. It came to attention that 38 people witnessed the attack and murder, but all thirty-eight failed to report it until after the murder. This ordeal got the attention of many people including scientists and psychologists who wanted to figure out why this occurred. Later, the events that were published by the news were found to be false. It seemed as if the news was experiencing the bystander effect as well, because their information did not contribute to the actual facts. There were not 38 witnesses to the crime, but several had heard the screams and a few calls were made to the police during the attack. But there was still talk about something that affected the minds of people during emergency situations. This phenomenon has become known as the Bystander Effect. There were several cases that are fairly similar to the Genovese one. As well as the Genovese case, these occurrences attracted the attention of many scientists and even the news had something to say about “apathy.” Is the bystander effect real? My hypothesis is that the bystander effect is in fact, a real everyday occurrence that limits the help offered by people. This is due to the number of bystander present during a given situation. The Bystander Effect is the social psychological idea that refers to cases in whi...
On December 3, in full view of a number of witnesses standing within close proximity, Ki-Suck Han, a 58 year-old male entered into an altercation with Naeem Davis, a 30 year-old homeless male at the Times Square subway station. Han was pushed down into the tracks and then struggled and pleaded for help for what was reported to be a full 22 seconds, as witnesses watched, took pictures, and failed to come to his assistance (Petrecca & Eversley, 2012). The man was then hit by the approaching subway train as it dragged into the station. This is a sad example of the Bystander Effect which demonstrates that people are less likely to come to the assistance of another in an emergency situation when other bystanders are present and also perceived to be responsible and able to help (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012). Moreover, we are most of the time influenced by Social Loafing. Social loafing is the diffusion of responsibility among a group of people. When a group of people are perceiving an emergency situation, all of them tend to think that others are available to help. Social influence explains that people always look to others to evaluate a situation as a real emergency. We assume that others may know something that we do not know and we measure their reactions before we decide how we will respond. If we noticed that those around us are acting as if it is an emergency, then we will view the situation in the same way and act accordingly. However, if those around us are acting calm, then we may not realize the immediacy of the situation and therefore fail to respond appropriately. Maybe this is the answer to why people did not help the homeless who was attacked by the 58 year- old man. They failed to see the situation as a real emergency, and as a result they did not act
Symbolism and meaning is by far one of the most important aspects of the tattoo industry. “The abstract emotions and human awareness of emotions show what really is going on in ones life (Johnson)”. For that reason tattooing is a form of self-expression, and can stand for literal interpretations. For the most part these interpretations are the conveying of spiritual meaning, or marking milestones such as life or death” (Johnson). For those who think tattooing is just for looks or put a bad judgment on it, should also realize that ones personal interest reflects upon their lives. “Many individuals get their first tattoos during adolescence or young adulthood.”(Bravermark) Due to the mainstream culture, these traditions traditionally associate with stereotypes. Stereotypes defiantly have a huge impact on life. Which leads to the next point? Whether flaunted or hidden, sought as art or brought out on a whim, the tattoo has left a huge impact on generation after generation.
Tattoos are a controversial subject in the world we live in. The kind of people that get tattoos is now varied to almost all humans regardless of race, religion, or age. What many people fail to understand or realize is how much of an effect a tattoo can have on the rest of your life. The original tattoo stereotypes have faded from what they were many years ago and yet tattoos still have a reputation as for what kind of people get tattoos. There are many reasons as to why people would get a tattoo but there are many reason why you should think before you ink. Our society and the social media today has a huge impact on the tattoo industry. Movie stars and pop singers with many tattoos are posing as role models for our generation and
The Merriam Webster Dictionary lists exactly seven definitions for the word “instinct.” However, the one that most accurately depicts human nature describes instinct as “a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason” (“Instinct”). In The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, the soldiers in the war depend primarily on instinct, often taking action without clear thoughts or proper reasoning. Hypothetically, if a grenade were to be thrown in front of a group of soldiers escorting a disabled civilian through a jungle, each soldier would have a distinct reaction. Some will choose to run away and leave the others behind, while some will choose to save the civilian first. One’s decisions reflect his or her thought processes, but one’s reactions will reflect his or her character. Tim O’Brien’s and Norman Bowker’s instinctive responses and post-war experiences prove that war exposes the core of one's identity.
Food borne illnesses are caused by consuming contaminated foods or beverages. There are many different disease-causing microbes, or pathogens. In addition, poisonous chemicals, or other harmful substances can cause food borne illnesses if they are present in food. More than two hundred and fifty different food borne illnesses have been described; almost all of these illnesses are infections. They are caused by a variety of bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can be food borne. (Center 1)