March 13, 1964 | New York Woman Killed While Witnesses Do Nothing
Of course, you read the wiki article and it seems to suggest that there are more factual misrepresentations in that case that continue to persist to this day, but I believe it begs the question, 'How helpful or altruistic really are people when someone is truly in need?' More likely one is to wonder what the breeding conditions for a problem like this.
Is it a combination of fear, complicity, apathy? Anything which overrides some biological inclination (found throughout mammalians) to help at the calls of obvious distress? Then I wonder about the power of massive social indoctrination, or the nature of social conditioning...for instance, do the natural spontaneous inclinations fall to the wayside when we are given responses which provide conditioning such that one were more likely to ignore cries...for instance, if a person were subjected enough to violent video games enough (where cries for help were more frequently experienced) would one be more likely in a given setting to be less stimulated by any such response. Or given to frequently watching horror genre films, were a given person less likely to be stimulated for the same sets of reasons. Of course, one might argue that the queues are different enough, given the nature of suspension of beliefs that would be involved in one scenario over another, but if we were conditioned enough to the seeming disembodied un reality of our present conditions (i.e, matrix films) coupled with psychotropic drug abuse would we more likely be less responsive to conditions described above? Hard to imagine that people en masse adopt in some ways, beliefs of a given fictional world, or that similarly minds would be so doped up, they could scarcely distinguish events in a conscious state.
Does the processing of sensory perception, however, in some way play a role here?! For instance, witnesses are around the explosion of a building, and the immediate aftermath, as some could describe, as having experienced something that seemed surreal enough to seem unreal, that is, people at first, literally might not believe what they are experiencing, because the experience is so seemingly disjoint relative to the context of expectations in that reality from all previous states. Here, as the continuity of perceptions persist the aftermath of a given event still continues to exist, it isn't going away, and likely it would seem they are more likely to agree with their sensory perceptions concerning a given local environment. But, however, short or lengthy in duration this might last, does it explain conditions where cries for help are ongoing for not mere seconds, but lengthier minutes, if not hours?! This seems potentially a short sighted doesn't it? I mean some might hold persistently (not in my backyard) pervasive belief systems (to the extent of greater self denials) that they deliberately choose not to believe in the perception of events, or ignore them, or fear responding to events (as in the case of retribution and reprisal...places where you might expect high levels of genocidal if not to say the least rampant violence), but characteristically one shouldn't expect this at such levels where complicity/conformity on this order aren't seemingly as pervasive.
More so a given pervasive belief, as I believe has been asserted, were stereotypes at such given times held personally by those, as claimed, where the given victim were thought to have brought her victimization upon herself, or in other words deserved it, but why should a given belief system be so widely held, or widespread? The more unsettling truth of this, is that social indoctrination may hold little weight with respect to truth. The truth as others should assert were that a male dominated society in such times and times past, persistently would hold more power, in the sense of prosecuting and investigation crimes, or that media as a an advocate for victims were likely to favor perpetrators over victims in cases like this. If rising advocacy for victims of domestic violence were a testament, marked and substantive change in the reporting and response provided to victims has been in the making for a mere few decades (this change is weighed alongside prior history seems to pale in comparison), or that it should similarly seem quite plausible that prevalent belief systems are also marked/reflected by the nature of their societies, institutional infrastructure alike by long standing legacies. The short answer to the question above, concerning why natural responses could be found to differ, is that artificial social synthesis can play a much stronger role in determining the outcomes of social behaviors offsetting inclinations for biologically driven instinctive responses. This is also to say, that likely we may still, owing to evolutionary genetics, be stimulated by cries for help, but the degree in which we act by this stimulation may at times be determined by more complex, personal and social psychological characteristics.
Of course, you read the wiki article and it seems to suggest that there are more factual misrepresentations in that case that continue to persist to this day, but I believe it begs the question, 'How helpful or altruistic really are people when someone is truly in need?' More likely one is to wonder what the breeding conditions for a problem like this.
Is it a combination of fear, complicity, apathy? Anything which overrides some biological inclination (found throughout mammalians) to help at the calls of obvious distress? Then I wonder about the power of massive social indoctrination, or the nature of social conditioning...for instance, do the natural spontaneous inclinations fall to the wayside when we are given responses which provide conditioning such that one were more likely to ignore cries...for instance, if a person were subjected enough to violent video games enough (where cries for help were more frequently experienced) would one be more likely in a given setting to be less stimulated by any such response. Or given to frequently watching horror genre films, were a given person less likely to be stimulated for the same sets of reasons. Of course, one might argue that the queues are different enough, given the nature of suspension of beliefs that would be involved in one scenario over another, but if we were conditioned enough to the seeming disembodied un reality of our present conditions (i.e, matrix films) coupled with psychotropic drug abuse would we more likely be less responsive to conditions described above? Hard to imagine that people en masse adopt in some ways, beliefs of a given fictional world, or that similarly minds would be so doped up, they could scarcely distinguish events in a conscious state.
Does the processing of sensory perception, however, in some way play a role here?! For instance, witnesses are around the explosion of a building, and the immediate aftermath, as some could describe, as having experienced something that seemed surreal enough to seem unreal, that is, people at first, literally might not believe what they are experiencing, because the experience is so seemingly disjoint relative to the context of expectations in that reality from all previous states. Here, as the continuity of perceptions persist the aftermath of a given event still continues to exist, it isn't going away, and likely it would seem they are more likely to agree with their sensory perceptions concerning a given local environment. But, however, short or lengthy in duration this might last, does it explain conditions where cries for help are ongoing for not mere seconds, but lengthier minutes, if not hours?! This seems potentially a short sighted doesn't it? I mean some might hold persistently (not in my backyard) pervasive belief systems (to the extent of greater self denials) that they deliberately choose not to believe in the perception of events, or ignore them, or fear responding to events (as in the case of retribution and reprisal...places where you might expect high levels of genocidal if not to say the least rampant violence), but characteristically one shouldn't expect this at such levels where complicity/conformity on this order aren't seemingly as pervasive.
More so a given pervasive belief, as I believe has been asserted, were stereotypes at such given times held personally by those, as claimed, where the given victim were thought to have brought her victimization upon herself, or in other words deserved it, but why should a given belief system be so widely held, or widespread? The more unsettling truth of this, is that social indoctrination may hold little weight with respect to truth. The truth as others should assert were that a male dominated society in such times and times past, persistently would hold more power, in the sense of prosecuting and investigation crimes, or that media as a an advocate for victims were likely to favor perpetrators over victims in cases like this. If rising advocacy for victims of domestic violence were a testament, marked and substantive change in the reporting and response provided to victims has been in the making for a mere few decades (this change is weighed alongside prior history seems to pale in comparison), or that it should similarly seem quite plausible that prevalent belief systems are also marked/reflected by the nature of their societies, institutional infrastructure alike by long standing legacies. The short answer to the question above, concerning why natural responses could be found to differ, is that artificial social synthesis can play a much stronger role in determining the outcomes of social behaviors offsetting inclinations for biologically driven instinctive responses. This is also to say, that likely we may still, owing to evolutionary genetics, be stimulated by cries for help, but the degree in which we act by this stimulation may at times be determined by more complex, personal and social psychological characteristics.
No comments:
Post a Comment