Bystander effect could cost lives

Today was an ordinary evening journey home after work, and then I encountered an incident that made me think a lot about the idea bystander effect. At one of London’s busiest underground stations at the pick of rush hour was a woman sitting down on the waiting chair with her belongings scattered on the floor, her eyes closed and her head hanging as if she was unconscious. At first you’d be forgiven for thinking she was asleep but it was very clear that something was not right with her. Everyone was aware that there was something wrong with her because they were all staring at her then looked away and looked at each other. Train comes along they get on it and go their merry way. I knew I had to do something but it still took me a little while to act on my instinct. When I finally decided to do something and approach the woman another woman also approached and asked if she was ok and we decided to find out together.

The woman could hardy construct a sentence which made it impossible to communicate with her. We called for help and the station supervisor was quickly there. The very patient man practically carried her up along the platform and up to the main level of the station. We stayed with her until the staff at the station told us it was ok to leave.

What shocked me the most about the whole event was the fact that no one was proactive enough to go and ask if she was ok yet everyone stared at each other and her as if to say I am not going to help because I think someone is going to do it...hence the station was very busy. I have never doubted that people are less likely to help if there are others around them but their decision to displace responsibility to someone else could cost someone their life. If there are about forty people on a platform and a single woman who is need of medical aid, why isn’t everyone racing to help her? Doesn’t anyone ever think that could be them or their loved one in the poor woman’s position?

Indeed bystander effect is accountable for peoples luck common sense but that should never be a reason. Yes I did get home half an hour or so than I intended to but so what? That is nothing compared to the feeling of saving someone’s life. So next time you see someone who looks like they need help or not well then please be the that “somebody” that actually does something.

‘The Second Sex’
Simone de Beauvoir famously argued that “one is not born a woman, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society”. She believed that identities and roles of women are culturally constructed for us by society and men. Being born a female is an automatic ticket to a “cultural project” that one assumes from the earliest stages of development. The little girl is encouraged to play with dolls and ’feminine’ soft cuddly toys. The female learns the art of femininity from her mother who has gone through the some cultural education. When we look back at history it is clear the world has always been patriarchal, such that men always held the social and political power in society, which included the power to name and categorise things including people. With definition follows traits and characteristics of the female being which in existential tradition is the “other”. ,,,,,to be continued

Fight club (1999)

Film philosophising and critiquing society

Traditional Hollywood films are often criticised for depicting the ideologies of the socially dominant and dismissing the critical views of society. These films often portray reality as a chain of cause and effects and human social existence as far more simplistic and positive than the reality. The narrative structures as well as the contents of these films often reinforce this very notion. “This critical view of mainstream narrative cinema was advanced by Frankfurt school of philosophers, Theodor Andorno and Max Horkheinmer.” (The philosophy of film: 209) They called the phenomena “culture industry” to refer to a vast complex of social institutions, including the film industry, dedicated to the domination of nature in the interest of commercial interest. The philosophy of film: 209). Thomas wartenberg disagrees with the philosophers and suggests that films are not and need not be seen as assisting social domination but can be seen to express socially critical views such as the ones found in the film fight club (1999).

The critically acclaimed film by director David Fincher explores many dilemmas of modern capitalist mass society where the individual is isolated from his self in a consumerist culture where one is defined by the possessions he owns and his identity is replaced by label. Fincher’s adaptation of Chuck Palahnuik novel is not only a critique of society but also a representation of ‘everyman’ frustration through the praiseworthy portrayal of the narrator played by Edward Norton. Fight club (1999) tells a story of an ordinary nameless man and a soup maker Tyler Durden who meet by chance on a flight and later build a male only organisation known as fight club: where men beat up each other gruesomely in a controlled environment. They use the fight club to vent their frustration at the world, society and themselves for being slaves to such an elusive and superficial and material society. The frustration perhaps comes from wanting to break free from society but being unable to do so because if they don’t conform they will be marginalised members of society. They therefore act like the rest of society during day working ordinary jobs but at night. Fight club functions as an active form primitive therapy for these men who come to it because they are disillusioned about conventional and restrictive society where everyone is promised the American dream.

Another critical theme in the film is the issue of emasculation. In an earlier scene the narrator attends a testicular cancer support group deliberately named “remaining men together”, where men who suffer from the disease share their stories and mourn their fate. This scene perhaps is also a metaphor for the emasculation of men in modern society, as their sexuality which makes up the very essence of their identity taken away. There is a brief flash of Tyler Durden just before the one on one starts perhaps to symbolise and support his argument that modern consumerism culture has deconstructed what it means to be a man. This ties in very closely with what Tyler says later on in the film that society has taken away men’s masculinity and that this is a society of women where men are raised by women only and absent fathers. The castration of men and feminisation is represented also through the fact that the group is encouraged to cry and find strength and courage in each other, which are all typically unmanly and feminine traits. The fact that Bob has breasts and has lost his testicles is the ultimate representation of emasculation of modern men.

The narrator is isolated in a profit obsessed corporate world and material society. Tyler on the other hand, has given up the materialistic life style for a more instinctive and primitive existences, where he only his most basic needs and desires are met. Although he earns a living he doesn’t own anything. He is the enlightened and disillusioned character that challenges the viewers to think and consider their position in the world. Tyler is extremely aware and critical of the superficial existence that many cling onto so dearly in the hope that they too will achieve the American dream. “We are by products of life style obsessions.” Tyler Durden says when the narrator complains about losing his apartment and all his material possessions that defined him. The narrator finds comfort in the hope that the insurance will cover all his loss but Tyler insists that there is no point in that as “the things you own end up owning you” such that the very things you control and you own become a burden rather than a means of setting you free. One feels that Perhaps Tyler is saying that in modern society we are defined through our roles and material achievements. Our needs and our true nature become non-existent and we become what society prescribes us to become.

The dominant ideology of the upper class Americans that has been reinforced onto the lower and middle class people, that the corporate American dream where success, money, perfect family and material possessions as the guarantees of personal happiness is challenged on many levels in fight club. Most Hollywood films portray this to be the ultimate reality for all when in fact it is a way of giving people hope and motivation to achieve the unattainable. The narrator says earlier in the film that he “found freedom, losing all hope was freedom”. His existential statement echo’s the ideas found in Albert Camus’s the outsider. In the outsider Meursault the narrator is a stranger to himself.

Meursault by extension Camus argued that when one reflected enough on his life he will realise the ‘absurdity of existence’ where nothing makes sense or has a meaning and realise life is just a habit we get used to rather than a purposive existence. Losing hope and aspiration and simply gratifying our most basic needs and taking pleasure in the simplest of things is what makes life worth living. Ultimately we all have a death sentence waiting for us and nothing is going to change this reality, not material possessions or success. The afterlife and redemption is not promised and that we should not live our lives in hope that life will be better after death. The narrator’s existence appears to be habit and a series of mundane routines imposed upon him by society. He had to destroy everything he owned that defined him in order to find out who he really was and the meaning of his life. Tyler is a representation of someone who has figured out society and its illusions and is no longer part of the structure such that his vary motives and desires are to destroy its very cores. Him and the rest of ‘project mayhem’ rebel and break all the rules that make up the modern capitalist society. However, as the name ‘project mayhem’ suggests the world would be chaotic and a mayhem if every man simply attended to their aggressive instinct without any regard for society. This brings about the destruction of himself.

Fight club has a very strong existential theme where the narrator is concerned about his personal identity, the meaning of life, freedom, death and the constant battle of the mind and reality. These themes often don’t lend themselves to narrative cinema films however are dealt with extensively in Fight Club. The issue of personal identity is dealt with on several levels from throughout the film. On a couple of occasions we see a graffiti of ‘myself’ and ‘self, behind the narrator and he even asks” If you wake up in a different time in a different place, could you wake up as a different person?” This strategic statement cleverly timed as Tyler goes the opposite direction on the escalator and the narrator goes the other way perhaps asks the viewer to question how personal identity is affected by time and place. Perhaps it is posing the more difficult question of personal identity after death. Another theme is the issue of mortality as mans ultimate reality that we need to accept and learn to leave with. “You are not special, you are not a beautiful or unique snow flake, you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else” (Tyler Durden) This shows that like everything else organic we will decay and die but we should not be sacred of this fact but “first you have to give up, first you have to know, not fear that, know that someday you going to die. It’s only after you lose everything that we are free to do anything”. This is a persistent theme in the film such that even the narrator tells us in the beginning he was only able to sleep when pretending to be dying because when one is knows he is dying he accept he accepts his fate, and this sets him and the people dying from all incurable diseases free because losing hope is freedom and happiness. Normalising or otherwise conforming to society’s rules and obligations are unsatisfying and as Nietzsche would say it denies man his will to power and therefore deny man his natural instinct.

Modern consumerism is culture dictates what we should be and what we should aspire to be. The consumer culture targets and brain washes the very people they depend on, those who do the most important jobs in society. It’s the average ‘Jack ‘who are the slaves of capitalism. Tyler says “advertising have us chasing cars and cloths, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We are the middle children of history. No purpose or place we have no great war, no great depression. Our great war is a spiritual war; our great depression is our lives. (Tyler Durden). The elusive ideology of the American dream that many cling on to so tight, the notion that anything is possible when you have hope because “we all been raised on television to believe one day we all be millionaires and move gods and rock stars but we won’t. We are slowly learning that fact” ( Tyler Durden) When disillusioned naturally and reasonably these very people that learn that that the American dream is simply part of “project hope” that’s only in place because it is a powerful weapon against crime and rebellion.

The members of fight club are the most intelligent in that most don’t even realise they are too are slaves “to the IKEA nesting instinct” (Narrator). Capitalist society is so brainwashed by the corporate world about improving their life and making their lives better they have lost true freedom because they are now dependent on these giant corporate to make them happy. Indeed what the mass don’t understand is that “we are consumers, we are by products of a life style obsession murder, crime, poverty these things don’t concern me. What concerns me is a celebrity magazine, television with five hundred channels, some guys name on my underwear. ( Tyler Durden). This statement raises an ethical question of why it is that we are not concerned with the real horrors and problems of the world, why it is our obsession to better ourselves, to become what Calvin Klein says we should look like is far more concerning than poverty and murder. One feels that this is a critique of western culture as a whole and its obsessions with bettering improving ourselves as if we are immortal while at the same time our lives are “ending one minute at a time”(narrator). After all we are all guilty of being slaves to the latest fashion trend or the latest technology not because we need it because we are told we do and that it will make our lives better, that it will miraculously make us more desirable and accepted members of society but the truth is “you are not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. (Tyler Durden) The sooner we set our selves free from being slaves to capitalism.

Fight club is a truly significant film in which the worries and anxieties of everyman are addressed. The issues of individual identity, freedom, the meaning of life, death and reality are dealt with extensively which is a rare tradition is Hollywood narrative cinema and are often associated with surrealist or independent films. Fight club shows that it is possible to deal with socially critical attitude and yet still be a Hollywood film.

Overconfidence
Kruger and Dunning (1999)

It seems that we all naively believe we are above average in social and intellectual domains that require task specific skills and knowledge. For example high school students grossly overestimate their popularity, driving skills and sense of humour. Many of us overestimate our abilities and performance levels in tasks like grammar and logical reasoning. It is evident that our perception of ourselves is overoptimistic and less extreme than our reality. Plausibly, if everyone believes they are above average and then the concept of above average logical need not exist (statistically impossible).

Kruger and Dunning carried out a series of experiments to test the hypothesised link between overconfidence and incompetence. It turns out those who are incompetent not only are overconfident they also fail to recognise competence in others as well as their own shortcomings and deficits. The authors argue that this ‘dual-burden’ is due to a lack of meta-cognitive ability in incompetent participants. This inability prohibits them of the skills needed for accurate self-assessment as well successful as social comparisons. Social comparison is an important skill to have in order to accurately assess ones competence relative to others.

Kruger and Dunning carried out studies in the domains of humour, logical reasoning and grammar skills. Across all their experiment they found that poor performers (i.e.) whose performance fell in the bottom quartile relative to peers) tended to rate themselves as above average and place themselves in the 62nd percentile. (12 points more than the mean/ average i.e. 50)

Ironically, top performers underestimated their performance. The authors argue that this is due to an error about others, such that they are overoptimistic about their peers. In contrast the bottom performer’s mis-calibration is due to an error about the self. (I.e. lack of self-insight) however, when confronted with the results of the incompetent performers, top performers rated themselves higher.

However, it seems that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the incompetent. When given the right training improve their meta-cognitive skills they are able to make more accurate self- assessments.

Over all, there is strong evidence that the unskilled are very often unaware of their incompetence which leads to inflated self-assessment. (Kruger and Dunning 1999) Many explanations have been offered as to why this is the case, such as the regression effect and egocentrism. However, it is also possible that the incompetent are unaware becasue they want to mainatin a positive self-image.

Professional Decision Making

Dhami (2003)

Punishment is intrinsic to any society that wishes to maintain control within its system: and only through the reinforcement of punishment are we able to achieve stability and peace within a community. Punishment is not and can not be good on its own but it is a means to a supposed end justice and protection of the majority. Therefore we assume those in a position of power that decide who to punish and how to punish them are well informed and fair, in that they consider all relevant information and make their decisions accordingly. However; many psychological studies have shown the contrary and found judges often use very limited or a single cue to make their decisions about jailing or bailing.

Our group was assigned the paper by Dhami on models of professional decision making, which found that professional such as judges make decisions the fast and frugal way. the study was concerned with compensatory and non compensatory models of decision making : namely the Franklin rule and matching heuristics. she set out to compare the predictive validity of these two models in bail decision making. The matching heuristics model was found to be a much better predictor of decision behaviours compared with the Franklin Rule. The finding is evidence for non compensatory cue use when making bail decisions which is inconsistent with the ideal bail decision making process which states that all relevant information should be considered.

Dhami and Ayton (2001) Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal aimed to measure consistence of bail decision making using Dawes rule, Franklin rule and matching heuristics models. This study also aimed to compare the compensatory cue use with non compensatory cue use in bail decision making and the findings were consistent with Dhami (2003) Models of Professional decision making. Gigerenzer and Goldstein also found evidence in support of “taking the best” cue and reaching a final decision accordingly as opposed to using total knowledge and integrating information. They concluded that people often use a” minimalist” process by which they only look at a subset of cues when making decisions.

Indeed, there are factors that may contribute to using a single piece of information as oppose to all information such as time constraints but can we actually consider such decisions to be 'fair'?