And, at least in big cities, there is so much going on, and so many people. Surely this makes bystander effect much worse. I like to help, but when problems happened, it was almost always the smart thing to do to just get out of the way.
And, at least in big cities, there is so much going on, and so many people. Surely this makes bystander effect much worse. I like to help, but when problems happened, it was almost always the smart thing to do to just get out of the way.
When you first see her, sobbing and frantic and saying she was robbed, you really want to help her because she seems legit. When you ask her what happened, you start to realize her story makes no sense, and she's either dealing with mental illness or addiction or both.
When you see her for the 20th time of course, sobbing and frantic, you realize she's obviously just grifting and you ignore her.
I could imagine an outsider determining that we are callus and cold, seeing me and my friends ignore a sobbing old lady crying out for help.
When I was younger (18-19, not that young either), I remembered driving by two Westerners standing on the sidewalk who were (probably) looking for help. As I wasn't sure if I should stop to help and then couldn't turn back because the street was fairly crowded, I asked my dad later that day if I should have stopped and help. His response: "Let other people more experienced (as in older and has more life experience) than you to help". He didn't say it explicitly, but the subtext was that it was probably a scam of some sort. Adding to the fact that culturally speaking, young adult up to their 30s are still considered "inexperienced", it wouldn't be surprised that the problem isn't just merely bystander effect, but people consciously avoids helping.
I do not really know if statistically, there are more scams in those country comparing to with, say the US. But I believe we're way more into gossip of anecdote scams than the West, and that's probably why people do not trust each other.
The bystander problem is very disheartening. But I'm afraid it'll take few generations to shed the mentality.
There is an interesting line of thought that high trust societies are caused by out-breeding. The medieval european church forbade cousin marriage for centuries out to something like third cousin. This broke up the clans and arguably made cohesive western nations possible. Today in much of the non-western world first cousin marriage is still normal. I believe most arab marriages are to first cousins. In the places where it's most prevalent you do tend to see clannish behavior and indifference/viciousness to the out-group.
Dunno if it's really true, but it does seem to fit various historical developments.
With China I think maybe you have to keep in mind what a scarring catastrophe Maoism was. Middle class people and values were systematically purged.
First and second cousins, and only in a few countries, and much of the collected data you'll find on the topic is 40-50 years old[1]. But what does that have to do with China?
> Dunno if it's really true, but it does seem to fit various historical developments
This is a really dangerous line of anthropological reasoning; certainly non-scientific at the very least.
[1] http://www.consang.net/index.php/Main_Page has a long bibliography. Unrelated: the site feels a little creepy...I don't totally understand the purpose of having a standalone site for the topic. However, the citations appear legitimate.
Oh no! Thoughtcrime?
It's perfectly amenable to science. I just don't happen to know the supporting science well myself.
Maoism was a resounding success, it was the cultural revolution that replaced the middle class.
I think the lack of trust rises from the fact that the chinese middle class were very recently (< 1 generation) the poor/underclass. There concept of wealth is a lot more transient than the west's, they have a much greater fear of losing wealth (given it happened almost overnight during the cultural revolution). It generates what the west views as a "selfish" attitude, but is probably viewed by Chinese as "prudent".
"The Cultural Revolution" was a horrible play Mao instigated through the Gang of Four in order to maintain power and throw those that might take it from him into disarray.
Cultural Revolution was used as an excuse to justify "The cultural revolution", but they are not the same, and you don't need students to go around killing people in order to achieve a cultural revolution.
I consider every brazillian a potential traitor and backstabber, and anyone that disagreed with me... well...
Deleted comment
There is an unusually high level of trust between Japanese people. I think the ethnic and cultural homogeneity is the main reason for this. Ethnic Japanese are seen as one big family. On the other hand, anyone who is non-Japanese is permanently excluded from this group. This is responsible for their extremely low levels of immigration.
Edit: I'm not sure why the comment was deleted; I hope the author didn't feel discouraged by any reactions, including mine.