Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted November 25, 2010 10:59 AM |
|
Edited by Shares at 11:07, 25 Nov 2010.
|
I usually call this the "shared responsability effect" and can be applied in a lot more ways than the bystander effect. There's plenty of studies that show that the more people there are in a group of workers, the less efficient each one becomes, for example. This is due to the fact that the more people there are in a group, the more each one will think that either some one else will do it or that no one will notice that THEY didn't do it.
Though you should also consider (again, what I call) the "impression effect". If some one is watching people usually wants to perform better. At least when the focus is specific on one person and that person respects (or fear or want to impress some how). It can also have reversed effect if the watched person instead gets anxious/nervous or doesn't truly realise he's being watch (meaning that cameras are a useless manner to impersonate this effect). This is what makes leadership so important. A good leader must be able to create this effect (by creating respect) as well as not making the workers anxious, but still take individual responsability. This can be seen in school, where I've made a lot of my observations. A good teacher will be respected by their students, put pressure on them and still make sure that they are not too anxious. Thus, a good teacher will have to put little effort into keeping order in class since the students will respect the teacher (then there's sometimes a few select people who doesn't really respect any one (usually because they don't respect themselves)).
These to effects counter each other and creates a balance and leads to the question: How many people should their be in a group to make it the most efficient? A larger group can do more, but a smaller group will be more efficient per person, unless it is too small.
Sorry if I'm being unclear and abstract.
Quote:
It's complicated (naturally). People have become increasingly less violent in history, and also increasingly more isolated. Internally, family structure has weakened, and in the bigger picture, communities have become less sociable and close-knit. The sad irony is that there's probably a connection between the two: as life gets easier, people are less driven to be close-knit with each other and become more internalized. I think both extreme violence/exploitation and extreme compassion have dwindled, resulting in complacency.
If another major depression occurs, and if it's ongoing, violence will increase, and the role of family and small community will also increase.
Even though I do agree with you here, I would rather point out the last bit to be because of the increased (relative) poverty. The poor are almost always the ones who do the majority of the (recorded) crimes, because they feel hopelessly lost and often betrayed by society. Thus they feel they have to resort to crime to survive, or that society doesn't really deserve their respect and then they don't have to follow the rules.
Then there's always organized crime and planned crimes that (I believe) are evenly spread out through the classes of society.
____________
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
