On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:36:43 -0700, Michael Sylvester wrote: >Ken,Jim: >Are you trying to say that there were no bystanders' apathy because two black >gangs were involved?
According to Jim's statements, no. As Jim says: |They continued to swing their bats to chase others away. If there was bystander apathy, there would be little need to chase people away with bats. >Your posts are ridiculous. Please, Michael, you are in NO position to make such a statement. Also, learn how to spell DOG. >Are bystanders' apathy only reserved for white people? Now you're just putting words into other people's posts. No one has ever claimed that it was only reserved for white people, only whether bystander apathy is an appropriate characterization of the situation being discussed. Since you are not an expert on the bystander research literature nor a researcher in this area, it seems much more plausible that you have inappropriately applied this concept to this situation. Harold Takooshian of Fordham University has recently written reviews of books the Genovese incident, explaining what had happend, as well as analyses that attack the concept of "bystand apathy" in general. One place to start on this is the PsycCritiques Blog which has a link to this book review: http://psyccritiquesblog.apa.org/2009/04/what-is-the-value-of-the-genovese-parable.html If you are really serious about this issue, you might want to contact Harold and discuss it with him. Contact info is provided on the website below and don't use my name: http://takooshian.socialpsychology.org/ >I saw the video too but the video did not capture folks who were >100 or 200 yards away. How do you know who was 100 or 200 yards away? >There were ordinary people around and this fact has been a matter >of discussion on the major news network. Do not use news program chatter as the basis for understanding what happened at an event -- I thought we had pretty well establish that sources like this are often inaccurate, misleading, and reflect a variety of biases, both cognitive and political. If you're really serious about the event, get the police report for the event. Interview the people who were there. Learn about the historical and cultural context in which this attack took place. This is hard work but as scientists we should come to expect that obtaining valid knowledge about a phenomenon involves hard work, dedication, and careful, critical analysis. That is, of course, if one isn't just make snap judgments about a event from an armchair far from where the event took place and is really more interested in BSing about the event than trying to understand it. >Obviously you all know nothing about a black community.Gimme a break. >Keep your eurocentric cognitive imperialistic analysis in the classrom.dude. If I thought you were being serious, I would say you're being extremely harsh here because (a) you really know the facts about the situation you're referring to, (b) you are a priori assuming that your "non-Eurocentric" perspective is the correct one to use in analyzing this situation (a position you assert by fiat and not by research or reasoned argument -- I await your manifesto supporting your perspective to appear in Psychological Review where one and all will be able to figure out what they hell you've been talking about all these years). If you are being serious, please realize that statements like the ones you've made here have no more validity than the ones made by current protesters against U.S. health reform, such as, death panels are gonna get your gramma, government health care is socialism, and President Obama is somehow Hitler. Or, in another context, the U.S. Census will be conducted only to identify those people (i.e., political and religious conservatives, libertarians, etc.) who will ultimately rounded up and put into concentration camps and ultimately to their deaths. If you are just kidding, please put an appropriate emoticon (e.g., :-) ) so that we know we shouldn't take what you say seriously. So much of your writing leave people wondering whether or not you are being serious. Especially about training doors. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
